Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Repulse]

In terms of escorts the following is a realistic set of standing tasks based on priorities.

- 2 FREs. Ready to surge globally either as singleton or as part of CSG deployments.
- TAPS
- High North Atlantic Patrol Ship
- Indian Ocean Patrol Ship (based in Oman)
- 2 CSG assigned escorts

Means 7 deployed/high readiness escorts - which based on a lean 3 deployed to 7 ships, requires 16 tier one warships. All ships can be crewed using current manning levels.

It would require all 5 B2 Rivers remaining in their current roles, plus 3 new UK EEZ patrol craft capable of acting as escorts for Russian ships (or other potential foes), reducing the demand on the FRE, ideally with a degree of Littoral ASW capabilities. Again no significant increase in crewing requirements.

Lean yes, relevant absolutely.

Can you explain how you're going to crew UKEEZ OPV with ASW capability.

Sure, it would be a CAPTAS-1 modular TAS requiring an increase in crew of @10, plus a Merlin capable helipad to support land based assets. More than possible.

Can you answer my question now on how you are planning to crew the T31s and whether they are forward based?

Why do you think forward basing is a negative?

Answer the question, I’ve asked it many times now.

As I have said many times now I would have 8 x T-31s all single crewed 4 in the Indo- Pacific and 4 in the Atlantic each ship would conduct 3 months on and 3 off allowing for 4 duty escorts with 4 going though step maintenance in there down time. Also as said I would keep the 8 OPV's and Ice patrol ship with 2 in the Indo-Pac and 6+IPS in the Atlantic

The 4 main areas will be the Gulf , Indian Ocean , North Atlantic & South Atlantic these areas are starting to be contested more and more by China , Russia & Iran using the 8 x GP frigates , 8 x OPV's & 1 IPS to Patrol and counter this we can surge our tire 1 fleet were and when we need to.

With 14 Tire 1 escorts we should be able to cover 1 x duty CSG , TAPS & SNMG1 or 2 no need for a FRE as we would have 4 duty escorts

You have said that many times. What is your calculation on the number of additional crew to support the increased number of T31s and this high tempo, and where are they coming from?

[Tempest414]

In terms of escorts the following is a realistic set of standing tasks based on priorities.

- 2 FREs. Ready to surge globally either as singleton or as part of CSG deployments.
- TAPS
- High North Atlantic Patrol Ship
- Indian Ocean Patrol Ship (based in Oman)
- 2 CSG assigned escorts

Means 7 deployed/high readiness escorts - which based on a lean 3 deployed to 7 ships, requires 16 tier one warships. All ships can be crewed using current manning levels.

It would require all 5 B2 Rivers remaining in their current roles, plus 3 new UK EEZ patrol craft capable of acting as escorts for Russian ships (or other potential foes), reducing the demand on the FRE, ideally with a degree of Littoral ASW capabilities. Again no significant increase in crewing requirements.

Lean yes, relevant absolutely.

Can you explain how you're going to crew UKEEZ OPV with ASW capability.

Sure, it would be a CAPTAS-1 modular TAS requiring an increase in crew of @10, plus a Merlin capable helipad to support land based assets. More than possible.

Can you answer my question now on how you are planning to crew the T31s and whether they are forward based?

Why do you think forward basing is a negative?

Answer the question, I’ve asked it many times now.

As I have said many times now I would have 8 x T-31s all single crewed 4 in the Indo- Pacific and 4 in the Atlantic each ship would conduct 3 months on and 3 off allowing for 4 duty escorts with 4 going though step maintenance in there down time. Also as said I would keep the 8 OPV's and Ice patrol ship with 2 in the Indo-Pac and 6+IPS in the Atlantic

The 4 main areas will be the Gulf , Indian Ocean , North Atlantic & South Atlantic these areas are starting to be contested more and more by China , Russia & Iran using the 8 x GP frigates , 8 x OPV's & 1 IPS to Patrol and counter this we can surge our tire 1 fleet were and when we need to.

With 14 Tire 1 escorts we should be able to cover 1 x duty CSG , TAPS & SNMG1 or 2 no need for a FRE as we would have 4 duty escorts

You have said that many times. What is your calculation on the number of additional crew to support the increased number of T31s and this high tempo, and where are they coming from?

to Support this we would need about 340 extra crew with each ship needing 105 crew plus some extra to cover sickness and training needs 3 months on and 3 off is not a high tempo in anyway shape or form and is a standard in the private sector some of these crew would come allowing sailors to go from one sea tour to another rather than forcing them to do a shore based tour like in the case of PhillyJ's Nipper

[Repulse]

In terms of escorts the following is a realistic set of standing tasks based on priorities.

- 2 FREs. Ready to surge globally either as singleton or as part of CSG deployments.
- TAPS
- High North Atlantic Patrol Ship
- Indian Ocean Patrol Ship (based in Oman)
- 2 CSG assigned escorts

Means 7 deployed/high readiness escorts - which based on a lean 3 deployed to 7 ships, requires 16 tier one warships. All ships can be crewed using current manning levels.

It would require all 5 B2 Rivers remaining in their current roles, plus 3 new UK EEZ patrol craft capable of acting as escorts for Russian ships (or other potential foes), reducing the demand on the FRE, ideally with a degree of Littoral ASW capabilities. Again no significant increase in crewing requirements.

Lean yes, relevant absolutely.

Can you explain how you're going to crew UKEEZ OPV with ASW capability.

Sure, it would be a CAPTAS-1 modular TAS requiring an increase in crew of @10, plus a Merlin capable helipad to support land based assets. More than possible.

Can you answer my question now on how you are planning to crew the T31s and whether they are forward based?

Why do you think forward basing is a negative?

Answer the question, I’ve asked it many times now.

As I have said many times now I would have 8 x T-31s all single crewed 4 in the Indo- Pacific and 4 in the Atlantic each ship would conduct 3 months on and 3 off allowing for 4 duty escorts with 4 going though step maintenance in there down time. Also as said I would keep the 8 OPV's and Ice patrol ship with 2 in the Indo-Pac and 6+IPS in the Atlantic

The 4 main areas will be the Gulf , Indian Ocean , North Atlantic & South Atlantic these areas are starting to be contested more and more by China , Russia & Iran using the 8 x GP frigates , 8 x OPV's & 1 IPS to Patrol and counter this we can surge our tire 1 fleet were and when we need to.

With 14 Tire 1 escorts we should be able to cover 1 x duty CSG , TAPS & SNMG1 or 2 no need for a FRE as we would have 4 duty escorts

You have said that many times. What is your calculation on the number of additional crew to support the increased number of T31s and this high tempo, and where are they coming from?

to Support this we would need about 340 extra crew with each ship needing 105 crew plus some extra to cover sickness and training needs 3 months on and 3 off is not a high tempo in anyway shape or form and is a standard in the private sector some of these crew would come allowing sailors to go from one sea tour to another rather than forcing them to do a shore based tour like in the case of PhillyJ's Nipper

Would the maintenance and training cycles work though in this three months on and off cycle? I’m also assuming you are forward basing some as there’s no account of transit times? Would also need to ensure the T31 is kept light so systems are low maintenance and can be done outside of the UK.

[Tempest414]

Yes the Maintenance and training would run alongside the 3 on 3 off

Yes the 4 EoS would deploy out Oman

As said I would have them fitted out with 40 mushroom CAMM and 8 x NSM in the first place I don't see this as light but it keeps them simple

[SW1]

Yes the Maintenance and training would run alongside the 3 on 3 off

Yes the 4 EoS would deploy out Oman

As said I would have them fitted out with 40 mushroom CAMM and 8 x NSM in the first place I don't see this as light but it keeps them simple

Would they be allowed to operate out of Oman to support current operations that oman see as helping Israel for example?

We need to re address where we are spending money putting support infrastructure in locations that are not sovereign.

[Tempest414]

Yes the Maintenance and training would run alongside the 3 on 3 off

Yes the 4 EoS would deploy out Oman

As said I would have them fitted out with 40 mushroom CAMM and 8 x NSM in the first place I don't see this as light but it keeps them simple

Would they be allowed to operate out of Oman to support current operations that oman see as helping Israel for example?

We need to re address where we are spending money putting support infrastructure in locations that are not sovereign.

Well should we or any state who has signed up to the genocide convention now be conducting operations that support any state who have been found in the ICJ to be plausibly committing genocide

However I would agree that Diago would be better but Oman is where we seem to be going so that is why I put Oman

[SW1]

Yes the Maintenance and training would run alongside the 3 on 3 off

Yes the 4 EoS would deploy out Oman

As said I would have them fitted out with 40 mushroom CAMM and 8 x NSM in the first place I don't see this as light but it keeps them simple

Would they be allowed to operate out of Oman to support current operations that oman see as helping Israel for example?

We need to re address where we are spending money putting support infrastructure in locations that are not sovereign.

Well should we or any state who has signed up to the genocide convention now be conducting operations that support any state who have been found in the ICJ to be plausibly committing genocide

However I would agree that Diago would be better but Oman is where we seem to be going so that is why I put Oman

Oman needs to be re assessed and imo we need to walk away from any idea of it as a maintenance facility.

Investment in infrastructure in Diego Garcia, Cyprus and Gibraltar prioritised.

[Repulse]

Investment in infrastructure in Diego Garcia, Cyprus and Gibraltar prioritised.

That I would agree with. Oman is about having a friendly nation with a slot of land at the choke point into the Gulf. As soon as energy security isn’t dependent on that region there’s little reason to be there.

[SW1]

Investment in infrastructure in Diego Garcia, Cyprus and Gibraltar prioritised.

That I would agree with. Oman is about having a friendly nation with a slot of land at the choke point into the Gulf. As soon as energy security isn’t dependent on that region there’s little reason to be there.

Our energy security isn’t dependent on the region now. More energy from the Middle East goes east.

Most of our energy comes from the Norwegian and British North Sea, and America is now our main source of LNG with oil and gas also from west Africa and South America particularly Nigeria and Peru , its single digit percentages that comes from the Middle East.

[shark bait]

Our energy security isn’t dependent on the region now. More energy from the Middle East goes east.

Lot's goes to Europe, and if the western world cared at all about security it would be doing everything possible to decouple itself from petro-states.

[SW1]

Our energy security isn’t dependent on the region now. More energy from the Middle East goes east.

Lot's goes to Europe, and if the western world cared at all about security it would be doing everything possible to decouple itself from petro-states.

Yes it does but I was more specifically talking about us. Yes but currently there is the opposite thanks to an obsession with weather dependent energy generation.

[new guy]

Build the Nuclear power plants.

[tomuk]

In terms of escorts the following is a realistic set of standing tasks based on priorities.

- 2 FREs. Ready to surge globally either as singleton or as part of CSG deployments.
- TAPS
- High North Atlantic Patrol Ship
- Indian Ocean Patrol Ship (based in Oman)
- 2 CSG assigned escorts

Means 7 deployed/high readiness escorts - which based on a lean 3 deployed to 7 ships, requires 16 tier one warships. All ships can be crewed using current manning levels.

It would require all 5 B2 Rivers remaining in their current roles, plus 3 new UK EEZ patrol craft capable of acting as escorts for Russian ships (or other potential foes), reducing the demand on the FRE, ideally with a degree of Littoral ASW capabilities. Again no significant increase in crewing requirements.

Lean yes, relevant absolutely.

Can you explain how you're going to crew UKEEZ OPV with ASW capability.

Sure, it would be a CAPTAS-1 modular TAS requiring an increase in crew of @10, plus a Merlin capable helipad to support land based assets. More than possible.

Can you answer my question now on how you are planning to crew the T31s and whether they are forward based?

Why do you think forward basing is a negative?

Answer the question, I’ve asked it many times now.

I though I had. I said that I'd rather have T31 alongside without crew but the ability to pull crew in emergency than useless OPV out and about carrying pointless low level engagement activities. Sizing the ships based on the crew you have is the wrong way round.

[tomuk]

Or the kipion and recent operation in the red are merged and our contribution to the region is a single vessel committed to a multinational task groups.

The pointless Pacific commitment is deleted. Our commitment to that region is from 2027 the deployment of an ssn to Australia to enable there nuclear submarine build up plan.

The remaining 4 vessels of the type 31 are committed to the 2 standing nato group and the two Atlantic patrol tasks.

If additional tasks are required to be meet then either an additional order for type 31 is placed or type 45 and type 26 are freed up for them by reducing to a single task group requirement.

Or you can live of hope of lots more cash…. Stop laughing at the back..

More funding will arrive but just enough to keep the wheels on the bus.

RN is going to get stretched now and it will begin to be everywhere and all at once by non state actors and proxies with the hope that HMG will pull everything back to the Euro Atlantic and concentrate on rebuilding a land Army for NATO.

A mix of Combatants and Patrol vessels is all the U.K. can afford so that’s what RN will get.

Keeping a couple of patrol boats in the Indo Pacific is extremely cheap and very sensible. Is having an SSN forward based in Australia really a priority for the UK? That will cost a gargantuan amount compared with a couple of OPVs. Where is the upside for the U.K. apart from selling submarines?

One escort covering the Red Sea and the Gulf plus the East coast of Africa clearly isn’t nearly enough.

A flash point could occur in Central America or Caribbean at any point so a permanent non combatant should be permanently assigned to patrol and provide stability. Perhaps we are to leave that to the US too?

A non combatant patrolling the West African coast and regularly supporting Forth is also extremely cheap and eminently sensible. A Frigate with CAMM, NSM and Mk41 cells just isn’t required and may actually be regarded as an escalation by some countries.

Isolationism isn’t a strategy, it’s an invitation.

Now is not the time for the U.K. to be handing out invitations.

So having an OPV in the Indo Pacific isn't isolationism but having an SSN is?

The whole AUKUS construct is multiple times more important than an OPV visiting the Pitcairn's pop 40 or having a cockers P in the Nicobars.

An OPV is as much as an invite then no presence at all.

[SW1]

Or the kipion and recent operation in the red are merged and our contribution to the region is a single vessel committed to a multinational task groups.

The pointless Pacific commitment is deleted. Our commitment to that region is from 2027 the deployment of an ssn to Australia to enable there nuclear submarine build up plan.

The remaining 4 vessels of the type 31 are committed to the 2 standing nato group and the two Atlantic patrol tasks.

If additional tasks are required to be meet then either an additional order for type 31 is placed or type 45 and type 26 are freed up for them by reducing to a single task group requirement.

Or you can live of hope of lots more cash…. Stop laughing at the back..

More funding will arrive but just enough to keep the wheels on the bus.

RN is going to get stretched now and it will begin to be everywhere and all at once by non state actors and proxies with the hope that HMG will pull everything back to the Euro Atlantic and concentrate on rebuilding a land Army for NATO.

A mix of Combatants and Patrol vessels is all the U.K. can afford so that’s what RN will get.

Keeping a couple of patrol boats in the Indo Pacific is extremely cheap and very sensible. Is having an SSN forward based in Australia really a priority for the UK? That will cost a gargantuan amount compared with a couple of OPVs. Where is the upside for the U.K. apart from selling submarines?

One escort covering the Red Sea and the Gulf plus the East coast of Africa clearly isn’t nearly enough.

A flash point could occur in Central America or Caribbean at any point so a permanent non combatant should be permanently assigned to patrol and provide stability. Perhaps we are to leave that to the US too?

A non combatant patrolling the West African coast and regularly supporting Forth is also extremely cheap and eminently sensible. A Frigate with CAMM, NSM and Mk41 cells just isn’t required and may actually be regarded as an escalation by some countries.

Isolationism isn’t a strategy, it’s an invitation.

Now is not the time for the U.K. to be handing out invitations.

The RN doesn’t need to be everywhere it needs to be where it supports government strategy and the future economy.

There is nothing I have mentioned that suggests concentrating on building up the army in Europe or pulling back I have mentioned a set of priorities though.

Maybe more than a single escort in Arabia and east Africa is required but it’s a lower priority than the nato and Atlantic tasks imo.

Yes having an ssn in the pacific is a priority as AUKUS is the naval priority. The upside of selling submarines is pretty huge, as is the need to contain China and having Australia able to contribute to it means we are secure as a result. The ssn is the principle capability for Pacific warfare at sea.

Yes a flash point may occur hence Atlantic patrol task north (which is the Caribbean/Central American station) having an escort.

I don’t know where this escalation nonsense comes from but it is nonsense.

How you think sending actual warships to locations of interest is isolationism rather than unarmed offshore vessels is baffling.

[wargame_insomniac]

Yes the Maintenance and training would run alongside the 3 on 3 off

Yes the 4 EoS would deploy out Oman

As said I would have them fitted out with 40 mushroom CAMM and 8 x NSM in the first place I don't see this as light but it keeps them simple

Would they be allowed to operate out of Oman to support current operations that oman see as helping Israel for example?

We need to re address where we are spending money putting support infrastructure in locations that are not sovereign.

Well should we or any state who has signed up to the genocide convention now be conducting operations that support any state who have been found in the ICJ to be plausibly committing genocide

However I would agree that Diago would be better but Oman is where we seem to be going so that is why I put Oman

Oman needs to be re assessed and imo we need to walk away from any idea of it as a maintenance facility.

Investment in infrastructure in Diego Garcia, Cyprus and Gibraltar prioritised.

We have already invested some money into HMS Sultan in Oman. I don't think we can afford to be throwing that investment away, but I agree that some caution would be sensible before investing further there.

Within the Persian Gulf we also have the option of the UK National Support Facility in Juffair, Bahrain, which we have already invested in.

Two things that reassure me about Bahrain, i

Firstly is that US 5th fleet is based in Manama. Bahrain might be prepared to p*** off the UK over a dispute but will be more cautious doing the same to US.

Secondly is that Bahrain did at least publicly back Operation Prosperity Guardian. That make them more reliable to western causes than some of the larger Gulf States, who we might of thought as erstwhile allies.

[SW1]

Yes the Maintenance and training would run alongside the 3 on 3 off

Yes the 4 EoS would deploy out Oman

As said I would have them fitted out with 40 mushroom CAMM and 8 x NSM in the first place I don't see this as light but it keeps them simple

Would they be allowed to operate out of Oman to support current operations that oman see as helping Israel for example?

We need to re address where we are spending money putting support infrastructure in locations that are not sovereign.

Well should we or any state who has signed up to the genocide convention now be conducting operations that support any state who have been found in the ICJ to be plausibly committing genocide

However I would agree that Diago would be better but Oman is where we seem to be going so that is why I put Oman

Oman needs to be re assessed and imo we need to walk away from any idea of it as a maintenance facility.

Investment in infrastructure in Diego Garcia, Cyprus and Gibraltar prioritised.

We have already invested some money into HMS Sultan in Oman. I don't think we can afford to be throwing that investment away, but I agree that some caution would be sensible before investing further there.

Within the Persian Gulf we also have the option of the UK National Support Facility in Juffair, Bahrain, which we have already invested in.

Two things that reassure me about Bahrain, i

Firstly is that US 5th fleet is based in Manama. Bahrain might be prepared to p*** off the UK over a dispute but will be more cautious doing the same to US.

Secondly is that Bahrain did at least publicly back Operation Prosperity Guardian. That make them more reliable to western causes than some of the larger Gulf States, who we might of thought as erstwhile allies.

My question would be would you dry dock a ship in Oman if you had a choice?

Bahrain have been quite supportive. However there has been a very significant number of attacks on US facilities across the Middle East. We don’t know what positions these regime’s may hold in future particularly in relation to Iran.

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

[tomuk]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

[new guy]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

Akrotiriti & Dehelkia haven't really ever had question marks over their ownership, at least I have never heard of any.

[tomuk]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

Akrotiriti & Dehelkia haven't really ever had question marks over their ownership, at least I have never heard of any.

The Turkish Cypriots have not been happy with the UK operations from Akrotiri. And the status of Cyprus is hardly settled. Who knows what a final position will be.

[Repulse]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

None of these claims are relevant unless the UK makes it so.

[Repulse]

I though I had. I said that I'd rather have T31 alongside without crew but the ability to pull crew in emergency than useless OPV out and about carrying pointless low level engagement activities. Sizing the ships based on the crew you have is the wrong way round.

It’s not a real answer, especially as crews don’t magically appear when you need them. What I could interpret you are saying is that you plan to forward base and double crew two (possibly Kipion and Falklands?) and use one as the FRE, leaving two to rust alongside?

[SW1]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

There is zero question marks over those locations ownership for as long as the uk wishes there to be. That’s the difference

[wargame_insomniac]

Have wondered whether a deal could be for with Cyprus to expand out the area around Akrotiri to include part of Limassol port to create a sovereign dock area, in return for areas elsewhere. Ayios Nikolaos and access to it is key, but the rest could be swapped without any strategic impact.

[Tempest414]

Yes the Maintenance and training would run alongside the 3 on 3 off

Yes the 4 EoS would deploy out Oman

As said I would have them fitted out with 40 mushroom CAMM and 8 x NSM in the first place I don't see this as light but it keeps them simple

Would they be allowed to operate out of Oman to support current operations that oman see as helping Israel for example?

We need to re address where we are spending money putting support infrastructure in locations that are not sovereign.

Well should we or any state who has signed up to the genocide convention now be conducting operations that support any state who have been found in the ICJ to be plausibly committing genocide

However I would agree that Diago would be better but Oman is where we seem to be going so that is why I put Oman

Oman needs to be re assessed and imo we need to walk away from any idea of it as a maintenance facility.

Investment in infrastructure in Diego Garcia, Cyprus and Gibraltar prioritised.

We have already invested some money into HMS Sultan in Oman. I don't think we can afford to be throwing that investment away, but I agree that some caution would be sensible before investing further there.

Within the Persian Gulf we also have the option of the UK National Support Facility in Juffair, Bahrain, which we have already invested in.

Two things that reassure me about Bahrain, i

Firstly is that US 5th fleet is based in Manama. Bahrain might be prepared to p*** off the UK over a dispute but will be more cautious doing the same to US.

Secondly is that Bahrain did at least publicly back Operation Prosperity Guardian. That make them more reliable to western causes than some of the larger Gulf States, who we might of thought as erstwhile allies.

My question would be would you dry dock a ship in Oman if you had a choice?

Bahrain have been quite supportive. However there has been a very significant number of attacks on US facilities across the Middle East. We don’t know what positions these regime’s may hold in future particularly in relation to Iran.

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

I have to say outside of Diego my next choice to dry dock a ship like a escort would be Singapore