Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[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

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?

I don't know I was not invited to the meeting

[Tempest414]

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.

I think a 57mm and 2 40mm is over the top on a OPV I think a 57mm and 4 x 12.7mm is a good fit or 2 x 40mm and 4 x 12.7mm I would also like a naval version the Thales Rapid Ranger

As a starting point I would like to see the RB2's fitted with SAAB X1 radar 57mm 2 x naval Rapid Ranger , 4 x 12.7mm and given a Peregrine UAV

https://www.ex2.com.au/wp-content/uploa ... 008916.jpg

[Poiuytrewq]

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

The devils in the detail.

- Cutting the Arfuras back to six makes sense.

- Cutting Hunter down to six before moving on to a Hobart replacement program also makes sense.

- The six LOSV plan looks a bit suspect. Appeasement for the 96x VLS proponents? Built in Western Australia to replace the OPVs?….Six A140’s would have achieved the same thing with much reduced risk. Massive cost inflation risk involved once the RAN start playing with a LOSV.

- Still no sign of a Baby Burke which is what the RAN have always wanted? Why not?

-The Corvette numbers are minimum seven, ideally eleven. Based on Australias recent track record equates to 7 or 8 hulls if you are lucky.

IMO the Corvette plan is the right one for Australia but the LOSV is simply to deflect criticism of reduced VLS numbers as without the LOSV this new plan actually reduces offensive VLS capacity.

Australia would have been much better with a conventionally balanced fleet IMO.

• 3x Hobart (replaced with 6x Destroyers)
• 6x Hunter
• 6x AH140 with Mk45, 48x Mk41 and 16x NSM
• 6x Corvette, 16x Tactical Mk41, 8x NSM, TAS
• 6x Arafura OPV

Hunter, Hobart and the AH140 with TLAM

If more hulls are required just build another batch of whatever the RAN needs.

[Poiuytrewq]

I think a 57mm and 2 40mm is over the top on a OPV I think a 57mm and 4 x 12.7mm is a good fit or 2 x 40mm and 4 x 12.7mm I would also like a naval version the Thales Rapid Ranger….

It absolutely is over the top today but what about 10 years from now? The swarms will just get bigger and more complex.

IMO RN need to rationalise around as few systems as possible including the RFA vessels which are looking seriously under protected now. The RB2s should have no further investment because they will forever be a compromise and in this climate that is unacceptable.

Time for all available resources to go into the UKs next gen OPVs now which may actually have to be Corvettes whether RN like the term or not.

Why Canada, Australia, the U.K. and New Zealand cannot get their act together and produce CANZUK classes of OPV, Corvette, Frigate and Destroyer so that development costs are shared and procurement costs reduced is mystifying.

If they can pull off AUKUS surely they can successfully organise CANZUK surface vessels.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think a 57mm and 2 40mm is over the top on a OPV I think a 57mm and 4 x 12.7mm is a good fit or 2 x 40mm and 4 x 12.7mm I would also like a naval version the Thales Rapid Ranger….

It absolutely is over the top today but what about 10 years from now? The swarms will just get bigger and more complex.

And expensive = less numerous. Cheap and numerous drones attack like now will not disappear.

IMO RN need to rationalise around as few systems as possible including the RFA vessels which are looking seriously under protected now. The RB2s should have no further investment because they will forever be a compromise and in this climate that is unacceptable.

No objection up to here.

Time for all available resources to go into the UKs next gen OPVs now which may actually have to be Corvettes whether RN like the term or not.

More T31 "as is", is what you are saying, I felt. No corvette nor OPV+. Any warship with so-so AAW and "57mm and 40mm" guns and a helicopter hangar is very similar to T31, and introducing new design will not be justified, I think.

[Repulse]

More T31 "as is", is what you are saying, I felt. No corvette nor OPV+. Any warship with so-so AAW and "57mm and 40mm" guns and a helicopter hangar is very similar to T31, and introducing new design will not be justified, I think.

Why are people obsessed with replacing OPVs that do the job, and be kept doing the job with minor investment, with light frigates that are triple the crew when forward based and triple the cost?

[donald_of_tokyo]

More T31 "as is", is what you are saying, I felt. No corvette nor OPV+. Any warship with so-so AAW and "57mm and 40mm" guns and a helicopter hangar is very similar to T31, and introducing new design will not be justified, I think.

Why are people obsessed with replacing OPVs that do the job, and be kept doing the job with minor investment, with light frigates that are triple the crew when forward based and triple the cost?

I do not know.
- OPV is OPV, it is not an asset to fight.
- Light frigate (or GP frigate) is a light frigate, an asset to fight (although with limited capability).
They differ.

[Poiuytrewq]

And expensive = less numerous. Cheap and numerous drones attack like now will not disappear.

Only partially.

Surely the inevitable direction of travel is for a modest number of highly expensive drones with low observability to be hidden inside a swarm of highly observable low cost drones.

Planning must realign to defend against this before it happens.

More T31 "as is", is what you are saying, I felt. No corvette nor OPV+. Any warship with so-so AAW and "57mm and 40mm" guns and a helicopter hangar is very similar to T31, and introducing new design will not be justified, I think.

Firstly the RAN has established that more mass is required and that overall tonnage is not necessarily mass. RN must do the same.

The RAN have also concluded that Hunter is too expensive and too slow. RN came to that conclusion years ago. Will Canada now follow?

The RAN have reorganised their procurement pipeline to add mass by the end of the decade. RN have absolutely no plans to add mass by the end of the decade. In fact it’s highly likely that RN escort and patrol vessels numbers will actually decrease by the end of the decade. It’s completely unacceptable and any number of fluffy press releases about the jam tomorrow T32 are worthless.

In real terms planned RN escort numbers are exactly where they were after the 2010 SDSR gutting. There has been no realisation that mass must be added. Why has Australia’s government reached a different conclusion to HMG? It’s a question that deserves an answer or a change of direction along with an increase in funding to urgently add mass.

More T31 by the end of the decade is virtually impossible, in much the same way as more Hunters for the RAN was impossible. Australia has found a solution, the U.K. must do the same.

If Babcock can strip out the VLS silo from a T31 and remove most of the amidships superstructure to allow a deck arrangement similar to the PPA or MRCV with a core crew of 60 or less plus flight for a 50% of the cost of a fully loaded T31 then great. Embarking 4x RHIBS on davits and retaining an open deck for 6x TEU would be straightforward.

If it could be achieved (and I don’t think it’s possible) where would any extra T31 derivatives be built? The only possibility would be blocks built around the UK and assembled at Rosyth.

IMO a modest class of 5x OPV+ still remains the most realistic way for RN to add mass by the end of the decade.

There are few alternatives.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...Firstly the RAN has established that more mass is required and that overall tonnage is not necessarily mass. RN must do the same.

The RAN have also concluded that Hunter is too expensive and too slow. RN came to that conclusion years ago. Will Canada now follow?

The RAN have reorganised their procurement pipeline to add mass by the end of the decade. RN have absolutely no plans to add mass by the end of the decade. In fact it’s highly likely that RN escort and patrol vessels numbers will actually decrease by the end of the decade. It’s completely unacceptable and any number of fluffy press releases about the jam tomorrow T32 are worthless.

In real terms planned RN escort numbers are exactly where they were after the 2010 SDSR gutting. There has been no realisation that mass must be added. Why has Australia’s government reached a different conclusion to HMG? It’s a question that deserves an answer or a change of direction along with an increase in funding to urgently add mass.

I do NOT believe any mass will be added to RAN by the end of this decade.

The only hope is, as they themselves states, buy it from abroad.

Then, why not RN (not RAN) buy a few Japanese FFM? We can sell a few to you. That will surely add RN mass within this decade.

IMO a modest class of 5x OPV+ still remains the most realistic way for RN to add mass by the end of the decade.

What I am saying is that, OPV+ is OPV+, will not add any mass on war fighting assets. If RN want more OPV immediately, it is easy: lease RNZN Otago-class OPVs (now both are in reserve (because of lack of crew)) for 2-3 years. We know there are a few Irish OPVs also, waiting for their crew.

In short, there is no need to build OPVs. There are plenty to be leased.

And the problem is, DOES RN have any redundant man-power?

[SW1]

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

The devils in the detail.

- Cutting the Arfuras back to six makes sense.

- Cutting Hunter down to six before moving on to a Hobart replacement program also makes sense.

- The six LOSV plan looks a bit suspect. Appeasement for the 96x VLS proponents? Built in Western Australia to replace the OPVs?….Six A140’s would have achieved the same thing with much reduced risk. Massive cost inflation risk involved once the RAN start playing with a LOSV.

- Still no sign of a Baby Burke which is what the RAN have always wanted? Why not?

-The Corvette numbers are minimum seven, ideally eleven. Based on Australias recent track record equates to 7 or 8 hulls if you are lucky.

IMO the Corvette plan is the right one for Australia but the LOSV is simply to deflect criticism of reduced VLS numbers as without the LOSV this new plan actually reduces offensive VLS capacity.

Australia would have been much better with a conventionally balanced fleet IMO.

• 3x Hobart (replaced with 6x Destroyers)
• 6x Hunter
• 6x AH140 with Mk45, 48x Mk41 and 16x NSM
• 6x Corvette, 16x Tactical Mk41, 8x NSM, TAS
• 6x Arafura OPV

Hunter, Hobart and the AH140 with TLAM

If more hulls are required just build another batch of whatever the RAN needs.

I think it looks a lot like the old RN c1,c2 &c3 requirements if I’m honest. They will have 9 high end vessels, 11 for maritime security and presence and 6 for mcm and eez patrol. If they excite it that is.

They seem to be looking at the Japanese frigate for there middle requirement which is much like our type 31.

[new guy]

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).

quite the opposite actually, they cut 8 OPV's, MCMV's and survey and I believe the 19 cape class mentioned all already exist.

[RichardIC]

The RAN has the same problems with crew shortages as the RN. So they need to find a way of fixing that before they start building a bigger navy.

They've probably got 10 years before things start getting delivered in earnest and noted that some vessels are going to be optionally crewed - in theory.

[Repulse]

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).

quite the opposite actually, they cut 8 OPV's, MCMV's and survey and I believe the 19 cape class mentioned all already exist.

50% of the significant surface fleet will be minor warships. If people get their way, less than 20% of the RN will be minor warships - the RAN does still value minor warships whichever way you paint it.

[Repulse]

- Light frigate (or GP frigate) is a light frigate, an asset to fight (although with limited capability).
They differ.

The T31 is not an asset to fight it’s an asset to operate in low threat environments with enough to deter threats against it.

To quote the RFI

…It will operate predominantly in low threat conditions but will require credible offensive and defensive capabilities to deter aggression, survive attacks and provide reassurance.

Where is this required?

[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…

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

Possibly, and if it is possible let’s do it as an interim solution. But let’s not kid ourselves that this is anything but a platform looking for a requirement - better to replace them asap with a credible ASW platform.

[SW1]

- Light frigate (or GP frigate) is a light frigate, an asset to fight (although with limited capability).
They differ.

The T31 is not an asset to fight it’s an asset to operate in low threat environments with enough to deter threats against it.

To quote the RFI

…It will operate predominantly in low threat conditions but will require credible offensive and defensive capabilities to deter aggression, survive attacks and provide reassurance.

Where is this required?

Every where the uk operates presently and clearly from the quoted RFI is capable of fighting. Or why else would you need credible offensive and defensive capabilities and the the ability to survive attacks?

[Tempest414]

More T31 "as is", is what you are saying, I felt. No corvette nor OPV+. Any warship with so-so AAW and "57mm and 40mm" guns and a helicopter hangar is very similar to T31, and introducing new design will not be justified, I think.

Why are people obsessed with replacing OPVs that do the job, and be kept doing the job with minor investment, with light frigates that are triple the crew when forward based and triple the cost?

For me I think if we could get the 5 T-31's and 2 T-26's on line by 2030/31 and upgrade the RB2's to have the SAAB X1 3D radar , 57mm gun and Peregrine UAV plus replace the RB1's we would have increased mass by 4 ships ( i.e the 4 RB2's )

The Key is to replace the 3 RB1's and keep the upgraded RB2's forward deployed

[Repulse]

- Light frigate (or GP frigate) is a light frigate, an asset to fight (although with limited capability).
They differ.

The T31 is not an asset to fight it’s an asset to operate in low threat environments with enough to deter threats against it.

To quote the RFI

…It will operate predominantly in low threat conditions but will require credible offensive and defensive capabilities to deter aggression, survive attacks and provide reassurance.

Where is this required?

Every where the uk operates presently and clearly from the quoted RFI is capable of fighting. Or why else would you need credible offensive and defensive capabilities and the the ability to survive attacks?

Err… to deter attacks nothing more. And no it cannot operate everywhere the UK operates - fancy sailing it into the Barents? Fancy being in it being attacked by multiple UAVs, USVs and UUVs in the Red Sea? Perhaps fancy sailing it into the Black Sea to piss off Russia? No don’t think so.

[SW1]

- Light frigate (or GP frigate) is a light frigate, an asset to fight (although with limited capability).
They differ.

The T31 is not an asset to fight it’s an asset to operate in low threat environments with enough to deter threats against it.

To quote the RFI

…It will operate predominantly in low threat conditions but will require credible offensive and defensive capabilities to deter aggression, survive attacks and provide reassurance.

Where is this required?

Every where the uk operates presently and clearly from the quoted RFI is capable of fighting. Or why else would you need credible offensive and defensive capabilities and the the ability to survive attacks?

Err… to deter attacks nothing more. And no it cannot operate everywhere the UK operates - fancy sailing it into the Barents? Fancy being in it being attacked by multiple UAVs, USVs and UUVs in the Red Sea? Perhaps fancy sailing it into the Black Sea to piss off Russia? No don’t think so.

That’s what escorts do defend and deter attacks on what they are protecting.

I would sail on it to those locations.

[Scimitar54]

Repulse wrote:-

Err… to deter attacks nothing more. And no it cannot operate everywhere the UK operates - fancy sailing it into the Barents? Fancy being in it being attacked by multiple UAVs, USVs and UUVs in the Red Sea? Perhaps fancy sailing it into the Black Sea to piss off Russia? No don’t think so.

Well ……………………. If an RB2 can sail into the Black Sea (HMS Trent) just a few years ago, then a T31 should have no problems. The Montreux convention closure would, of course not be in operation (i.e. no war).

[Repulse]

Repulse wrote:-

Err… to deter attacks nothing more. And no it cannot operate everywhere the UK operates - fancy sailing it into the Barents? Fancy being in it being attacked by multiple UAVs, USVs and UUVs in the Red Sea? Perhaps fancy sailing it into the Black Sea to piss off Russia? No don’t think so.

Well ……………………. If an RB2 can sail into the Black Sea (HMS Trent) just a few years ago, then a T31 should have no problems. The Montreux convention closure would, of course not be in operation (i.e. no war).

HMS Echo also went, but neither did FONOPs to piss of the Russians.

[Pte. James Frazer]

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

"If Babcock can strip out the VLS silo from a T31 and remove most of the amidships superstructure to allow a deck arrangement similar to the PPA or MRCV with a core crew of 60 or less plus flight for a 50% of the cost of a fully loaded T31 then great. Embarking 4x RHIBS on davits and retaining an open deck for 6x TEU would be straightforward."

Can't you see the absurdity of your proposal? If not, you must be smoking some good stuff in your bubble.

Acquisition and operating (mainly crew) cost are a function of onboard systems (i.e. CMS/weapon systems and damage control = capabilities) not size/tonnage. Yet your proposal replicates the T31's systems, so no great savings either way, just a rather smaller hull with less upgrade path.

A proposal that requires a yet to be built hull by a yard (should a UK one have the skilled workforce and capacity to execute) that hasn't built that hull. A hull that today might be a concept rather than a fully detailed design.

A worthy medium term aspiration to maintain design skills but not one that adds immediate 'mass' vs a simple upgrade to T31 with a fraction of the incremental crewing headaches, freeing up T26 to focus on TAP/Altantic/CSG and T45 (a little).

Having flags on the map is now pretty well served by RB2s. Adding more underarmed OPV+s won't fill any strategic geograhical gaps (imo), won't be a deterrent elsewhere and won't contribute to a true conflict, but rather would be liabilities in a manpower challenged environment or if tasked to go where a warship ought to be.

PS re RB2s, yes containerised Peregrine for ISTAR would be very desirable and ideally 3D radar + 57mm (range vs 40mm) and autonomous armed Pac24 RHIBS in time.

[Poiuytrewq]

Can't you see the absurdity of your proposal?

You seem to be conflating various things at the same time so I am struggling to follow your argument apart from the T31 is good, an OPV with a hanger is bad and nobody in the U.K. have the skills to build ships apart from Babcock and BAE or even the means of designing an OPV to replace the Rivers.

What are you proposing as an alternative?

[Poiuytrewq]

What I am saying is that, OPV+ is OPV+, will not add any mass on war fighting assets. If RN want more OPV immediately, it is easy: lease RNZN Otago-class OPVs (now both are in reserve (because of lack of crew)) for 2-3 years. We know there are a few Irish OPVs also, waiting for their crew.

In short, there is no need to build OPVs. There are plenty to be leased.

How does 2-3 years help?

Leasing OPVs is just a sticking plaster solution.

RN needs more mass permanently.

And the problem is, DOES RN have any redundant man-power?

The headcount crisis needs to be resolved as a priority but that cannot be allowed to stop an uplift in escort and patrol vessel numbers.

If properly resourced the headcount crisis should ease within a few years. If HMG fail to tackle it as a priority now then even the existing vessels will struggle to find a crew.

[Pte. James Frazer]

Can't you see the absurdity of your proposal?

You seem to be conflating various things at the same time so I am struggling to follow your argument apart from the T31 is good, an OPV with a hanger is bad and nobody in the U.K. have the skills to build ships apart from Babcock and BAE or even the means of designing an OPV to replace the Rivers.

What are you proposing as an alternative?

You seem to be obtuse.

I'm saying your argument of new build hulls (especially new build OPVs) is flawed on any levels, so I,m not proposing any new build as an immediate solution to your 'mass' concerns. Rather a more practicable solution to improve the RNs short term capabilities in a volatile world.