Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

I think the Holland would be quite expensive if built today it was about 120m euros with the hull built in Romania in 2007. But also quite capable.

I would disagree that it wasn’t what some are proposing as the opv+ because tempest spec was “I think we should be able to build a 105 to 110 by 16 meter OPV with a cheap 3D radar good CMS crew of 45 with 1 x 57mm and 2 times 8 round LMM launches plus a hangar and flight deck for SH-60 or Wildcat”

Which to me very much sounded identical to what the US coastguard are buying.

IMO an OPV+ is a non-combatant and would require an escort in high threat environments.

In RN terms an OPV+ is an RB2 with a hanger, 57mm and 2x 40mm to add a level of self defense plus TACTICOS and NS50 or NS110. Provision should be made for containerised CAMM, TAS and other off-board systems.

That’s it.

However on a day to day basis the OPV+ can do everything a T31 can do in low threat environments. If an OPV+ is operating in an area were the threat level raises from low to medium or high then it is replaced by a T31.

A T31 and OPV+ would be an effective pairing and adding an MRSS such as a 14428 or 15628 would create a useful and extremely cost effective group.

The benefits to RN availability would be huge if five OPV+ were commissioned before 2030.

Before the upgrade the T31 would have filled this role but RN clearly want a different direction for the T31 now which is prudent IMO.

[Tempest414]

So no matter who owns Diego Garcia the US will be able to keep its base there on a long term lease so it would be a great place for us to base any escorts , OPV's or MRSS out of to cover the Indian Ocean , Gulf , and East Africa

If it is such a great location why are we not using it now?

That is simple we don't have a patrol group in the Indian Ocean and yes we do have a escort and Bay class in the Gulf

But we've invested in Duqm. Wouldn't any Indian Ocean patrol group be based there?

I have said up thread that any group would likely operate from there given the investment

I thought Duqm was a logistics base, like Singapore, rather than a forward operating base?

Maybe but LRG-S will be using it as their operating forward base

[SW1]

I think the Holland would be quite expensive if built today it was about 120m euros with the hull built in Romania in 2007. But also quite capable.

I would disagree that it wasn’t what some are proposing as the opv+ because tempest spec was “I think we should be able to build a 105 to 110 by 16 meter OPV with a cheap 3D radar good CMS crew of 45 with 1 x 57mm and 2 times 8 round LMM launches plus a hangar and flight deck for SH-60 or Wildcat”

Which to me very much sounded identical to what the US coastguard are buying.

IMO an OPV+ is a non-combatant and would require an escort in high threat environments.

In RN terms an OPV+ is an RB2 with a hanger, 57mm and 2x 40mm to add a level of self defense plus TACTICOS and NS50 or NS110. Provision should be made for containerised CAMM, TAS and other off-board systems.

That’s it.

So you’re back to what a US heritage cutter looks like, not the almost unarmed, non helicopter and non sensor equipped Samuel Beckett. Which the US coastguard state are specied to

“The OPCs will provide the majority of offshore presence for the Coast Guard’s cutter fleet. The OPCs will conduct missions including law enforcement, drug and migrant interdiction, search and rescue, and other homeland security and defense operations. Each OPC will be capable of deploying independently or as part of task groups and serving as a mobile command and control platform for surge operations such as hurricane response, mass migration incidents and other events. The cutters will also support Arctic objectives by helping regulate and protect emerging commerce and energy exploration in Alaska.”

I assume that’s the type of tasks you had in mind.

The idea that we are somehow going to start building these and have them all in service in 2030 is simply not realistic there is no yard or design ready to go to RN standards.


There has been no upgrade to the type 31 as yet so just keep building there is just aspirational capability insertions at some point in the future.

[Pte. James Frazer]

Poiuytrewq wrote:

"In RN terms an OPV+ is an RB2 with a hanger, 57mm and 2x 40mm to add a level of self defense plus TACTICOS and NS50 or NS110. Provision should be made for containerised CAMM, TAS and other off-board systems."

You've just perfectly described a T31 without CAMM, which has a unit cost of c.£250m not some mythical £120-150m.

T31 has the ability to have a containerised TASS (under the flight deck), should that be a RN requirement. Fitted with CAMM means it doesn't need a further escort, unlike your OPV+.

Adding mass (OPV+ hulls) requires proportionately more marine engineering CPOs, POs, rates etc. which are currently in very short supply.

In contrast, if budget were available, quickly upspeccing T31 with Mk41 and more CAMM would not (might need a modest uplift in a few more weapons engineers compared with current plans...that's about it).

I'd leave all RB2s where they, are doing what they're doing well....surveillance, engagement and training. In fact, a current spec T31 would be overkill for engagement in the Indo-Pacific.

Best to use current (hopefull upspecced) T31 for choke point policing: 2x Persian Gulf/Gulf of Aden, 2x SNMG 1&2, 1x FRE (maintenance periods to be covered in rotation by the 'spare' T45 - assuming 2 other active T45 allocated to CSG). They could also be attached to CSG as a 'goalkeeper'.

[tomuk]

I personally think we need to go back to the requirements. IMO the OPVs are primarily there to protect UK oversea territories and participate in low level regional activities (exercises, diplomacy, anti piracy / drugs and training). It’s about a low level presence which capabilities that matches the role and the local area threat level.

Whilst I see the need for a larger gun for self defence against the proliferation of UAVs/USVs, perhaps a modest upgrade to the radar and even nice to have small hanger - we aren’t talking Heritage class nor anything similar. The damage control of a B2 is sufficient, we are expecting these ships to withdrawal gracefully from anything larger than fast boat with an RPG / machine guns.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the roaming nature of the two EoS OPVs is causing the confusion. I would personally think about giving each a named forward base - which for me would be Diego Garcia and the other somewhere to cover the Pacific region, either New Zealand or a friendly Pacific Island. They can still do what they do now, but it will link them both to a core requirement (to protect UK oversea territories).

But they aren't there primarily to protect British overseas territories. You're trying to create a requirement that isn't there.

[tomuk]

The Virginias will be taking subs away from the US fleet. Basing an Astute there will remove a SSN from the North Atlantic and building SSNs for Australia will slow down the possible expansion of the U.K. SSN fleet. How much will the U.K.’s next SSN be delayed by to sell submarines to Australia?


The U.K. could very easily make the investment with BAE or Rolls Royce without Australia if HMG had chosen to do so. Commissioning a SSN every two years and maintaining a fleet of 12-15 is perfectly possible if HMG decided it was a priority.

The whole point of AUKUS is that it speeds up SSN(R) by sharing the load, and increasing the throughput on suppliers etc. It also keeps HMG honest.
How many Astutes have we go now compared to when Switsures and Trafalgars were on stream? What see now is a result of HMGs priorities.

It should not require a deal such as AUKUS to ensure that HMG invests properly in sufficient numbers of SSN to meet the U.K. national security requirements.

If it was prioritised the UK could easily have 12-15 SSN. Its cost cutting thst precludes that not the lack of a deal like AUKUS?

Are you suggesting that if AUKUS hadn’t of happened the U.K. would not have invested in replacements for the Astute class?

Replacements for the Astutes would have happened but at a more lesurely pace and they would have been direct replacements not an expansion.

[tomuk]

So no matter who owns Diego Garcia the US will be able to keep its base there on a long term lease so it would be a great place for us to base any escorts , OPV's or MRSS out of to cover the Indian Ocean , Gulf , and East Africa

If it is such a great location why are we not using it now?

That is simple we don't have a patrol group in the Indian Ocean and yes we do have a escort and Bay class in the Gulf

But we've invested in Duqm. Wouldn't any Indian Ocean patrol group be based there?

I have said up thread that any group would likely operate from there given the investment

But why did we make that investment and get Babcock involved in the building the facility why didn't we do in in Diego Garcia?

[Poiuytrewq]

Replacements for the Astutes would have happened but at a more lesurely pace and they would have been direct replacements not an expansion.

Even with AUKUS are you expecting an increase in UK SSN numbers before 2050?

[tomuk]

Replacements for the Astutes would have happened but at a more lesurely pace and they would have been direct replacements not an expansion.

Even with AUKUS are you expecting an increase in UK SSN numbers before 2050?

I'm expecting more UK SSNs with the AUKUS in place than without it.

[Poiuytrewq]

Replacements for the Astutes would have happened but at a more lesurely pace and they would have been direct replacements not an expansion.

Even with AUKUS are you expecting an increase in UK SSN numbers before 2050?

I'm expecting more UK SSNs with the AUKUS in place than without it.

Great but will an 8th UK SSN commission before 2050?

[Ian Hall]

But they aren't there primarily to protect British overseas territories. You're trying to create a requirement that isn't there.

They are absolutely there to protect UK interests, territories and EEZs being a key part of that. They can do this in addition to everything else and it’s not making up a requirement it’s coming what is being done already.

[Poiuytrewq]

You've just perfectly described a T31 without CAMM, which has a unit cost of c.£250m not some mythical £120-150m.

T31 has the ability to have a containerised TASS (under the flight deck), should that be a RN requirement. Fitted with CAMM means it doesn't need a further escort, unlike your OPV+.

Adding mass (OPV+ hulls) requires proportionately more marine engineering CPOs, POs, rates etc. which are currently in very short supply.

In contrast, if budget were available, quickly upspeccing T31 with Mk41 and more CAMM would not (might need a modest uplift in a few more weapons engineers compared with current plans...that's about it).

I'd leave all RB2s where they, are doing what they're doing well....surveillance, engagement and training. In fact, a current spec T31 would be overkill for engagement in the Indo-Pacific.

Best to use current (hopefull upspecced) T31 for choke point policing: 2x Persian Gulf/Gulf of Aden, 2x SNMG 1&2, 1x FRE (maintenance periods to be covered in rotation by the 'spare' T45 - assuming 2 other active T45 allocated to CSG). They could also be attached to CSG as a 'goalkeeper'.

Thanks.

Your opinion is clear and makes a lot of sense however IMO the T31 is going to cost a lot more than many currently believe. The GFE that was supposed to be cross decked from the T23 will be minimal. The addition of NSM and Mk41 cells will not be cheap and if TLAM is added then the cost will rise exponentially. This is good news, the T31 will be proper GP Frigates as they should have been from the start.

What I am proposing is something very different.

• A non-combatant vessel with no more than 50 crew plus flight built to a mix of naval and commercial standards.

• A maximum sustained speed of 24knts, a range of 10,000nm and an endurance of 60 days with excellent sea keeping qualities.

• A Merlin capable flight deck and a hanger suitable for a Wildcat plus UAV.

• A LOA of around 115m and a beam of around 16m.

• An open deck capacity of 6x TEU and a 20t crane. A simple stern mission area capable of embarking a small containerised TAS.

• A capacity of 4x RHIBs on davits plus an EMF of 50.

• A simple but potent armament of a single 57mm plus 2x 40mm purely for self defense.

• Fitted with TACTICOS and either NS50 or NS110.

• Zero GFE and zero alterations once the design is selected.

Even if they eventually cost £200m unit they would be 50% of the cost of a T31 with 50% of the crew allocation. They would also be much cheaper operate and maintain.

Done properly a U.K. OPV+ could also have huge export potential for U.K. PLC, especially if a heavily armed Corvette export variant is developed simultaneously.

Perhaps a simplified T31 is a credible option with much of the superstructure amidships removed to create an open working deck, similar to the MRCV for Singapore but without all of the other costly alterations.

IMG_1395.png

[new guy]

I personally think we need to go back to the requirements. IMO the OPVs are primarily there to protect UK oversea territories and participate in low level regional activities (exercises, diplomacy, anti piracy / drugs and training). It’s about a low level presence which capabilities that matches the role and the local area threat level.

Whilst I see the need for a larger gun for self defence against the proliferation of UAVs/USVs, perhaps a modest upgrade to the radar and even nice to have small hanger - we aren’t talking Heritage class nor anything similar. The damage control of a B2 is sufficient, we are expecting these ships to withdrawal gracefully from anything larger than fast boat with an RPG / machine guns.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the roaming nature of the two EoS OPVs is causing the confusion. I would personally think about giving each a named forward base - which for me would be Diego Garcia and the other somewhere to cover the Pacific region, either New Zealand or a friendly Pacific Island. They can still do what they do now, but it will link them both to a core requirement (to protect UK oversea territories).

Completely agree

[new guy]

IMG_1395.png

You did not just put a MRCV as a £100m range OPV.

[tomuk]

But they aren't there primarily to protect British overseas territories. You're trying to create a requirement that isn't there.

They are absolutely there to protect UK interests, territories and EEZs being a key part of that. They can do this in addition to everything else and it’s not making up a requirement it’s coming what is being done already.

UK interests is lot wider than protecting BOTs. Which BOTs are they protecting?

[tomuk]

Replacements for the Astutes would have happened but at a more lesurely pace and they would have been direct replacements not an expansion.

Even with AUKUS are you expecting an increase in UK SSN numbers before 2050?

I'm expecting more UK SSNs with the AUKUS in place than without it.

Great but will an 8th UK SSN commission before 2050?

2050 is irrelevant. You would not be getting extra SSNs at all without AUKUS.

[Poiuytrewq]

2050 is irrelevant. You would not be getting extra SSNs at all without AUKUS.

2050 is very very relevant.

It has been widely reported that AUKUS will increase RN SSN numbers but nobody appears to have established when the 8th UK SSN-AUKUS will commission.

[new guy]

2050 is irrelevant. You would not be getting extra SSNs at all without AUKUS.

2050 is very very relevant.

It has been widely reported that AUKUS will increase RN SSN numbers but nobody appears to have established when the 8th UK SSN-AUKUS will commission.

SSN-AUKUS will deliver late 2030's with the last Astute seeing 2050.

[Scimitar54]

Can we put AUKUS comments on the correct thread please.

[tomuk]

The Australian surface review is out and although not directly on topic - see other thread. The conclusions maybe of interest on impact on T26 and wider future ideas of vessels going forward.

In Summary
Only Six Hunter to be built 3 cancelled

Only Six Arfura OPVs to built six cancelled

Two oldest Anzacs scrapped now and no Transcap upgrade on the remaining Six

Eleven Tier 2 ASW focussed 3,000t light frigates with self defense AAW only. Initially built overseas, Germany, Spain, Japan or Korea. Meko A200, Alfa3000, Mogami or Daegu.

Six LOSV Arsenal Ships 2,000t 'nothing' ship with 32 VLS 'unmanned' to follow the Hobarts and Hunters around. Potntially overseas build. USN are ordering a prototype next year.

NSM for Anzacs and Hobarts to replace Harpoon, Tomahawk for Hobarts and Hunter.

[Repulse]

Eleven Tier 2 ASW focussed 3,000t light frigates with self defense AAW only. Initially built overseas, Germany, Spain, Japan or Korea. Meko A200, Alfa3000, Mogami or Daegu.

T31 more so IMO, no mention of a variant for the Tier 2. The requirement has ASW capabilities down also -



Also, seems that Australia hasn’t forgotten the importance of minor warships

25 minor war vessels to contribute to civil maritime security operations, which includes six Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs).

Lastly, the timing of the replacement for the Hobart’s could tie nicely for the T83, especially as positioned as a “no brainer” follow on from the T26.

The Hunter class frigates will be built at the Osborne shipyard in South Australia, and will be followed by the replacement of the Hobart class destroyer. The Hobart destroyers will be upgraded at Osborne with the latest US Navy Aegis combat system.

[SW1]

So they are cutting the top and the opvs at the bottom to bulk out the middle. Interesting

[Repulse]

So they are cutting the top and the opvs at the bottom to bulk out the middle. Interesting

One that can do ASW - if only…

[Tempest414]

Eleven Tier 2 ASW focussed 3,000t light frigates with self defense AAW only. Initially built overseas, Germany, Spain, Japan or Korea. Meko A200, Alfa3000, Mogami or Daegu.

T31 more so IMO, no mention of a variant for the Tier 2. The requirement has ASW capabilities down also -



Also, seems that Australia hasn’t forgotten the importance of minor warships

25 minor war vessels to contribute to civil maritime security operations, which includes six Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs).

Lastly, the timing of the replacement for the Hobart’s could tie nicely for the T83, especially as positioned as a “no brainer” follow on from the T26.

The Hunter class frigates will be built at the Osborne shipyard in South Australia, and will be followed by the replacement of the Hobart class destroyer. The Hobart destroyers will be upgraded at Osborne with the latest US Navy Aegis combat system.

There is one thing here there has been no ASBM used in the Red Sea there has been LABM used in a vain hope of hitting something

Babcock and HMG really need to push AH-140 under a wider AUKUS deal

[Tempest414]

So they are cutting the top and the opvs at the bottom to bulk out the middle. Interesting

One that can do ASW - if only…

We all know T-31 could do ASW duties in the same way FDI will if it was given a VDS

I have to say the French FDI will be a good contender