Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... s.html?m=1

Looking at all the past RAN plan, the ambition will never be met. But, cutting 2 ANZAC will be solid, 6 remaining. Along with 3 Hobert class and 6 T26RAN, 4-6 light frigates shall be there, at most.

I shall say I am far from pessimistic, just learning from the history = being realistic. Many many histories there are.

But, anyway, RAN will see better investments than now they get. This is very good. The "2-4 light frigates' initial batch", to be build in foreign country, will meet the schedule and cost. 4-2 more will be built in Australia, but with delay.

The most critical issue is man-power. I see no practical measure how to solve it within a decade. I might be pessimistic here, though.

[Tempest414]

As I keep saying Nato Europe not including the US and Canada has 127 escorts and 80 Corvettes & OPV's it also has 13 SSN's and 53 SSK's

just for balance Russian Atlantic fleet has 12 escorts , 13 SSN's & 6 SSK's

[donald_of_tokyo]

What do you mean by meaningful mass are you referring to combat mass as I do believe that the RB2's could being meaningful mass in terms of low level yet important roles and even war roles like mine laying and making up numbers in convoy groups

Thanks for right question.

I totally agree "RB2's is meaningful mass in terms of low level yet important roles". I also agree every assets has war-time roles. For example, Castle-class OPVs were used as a messenger/light-cargo assets in the Falklands war. Mine-laying, not sure, may be (if RN buys mines). Rescue assets in convoy (to save the crews from sinking/sunken vessels), etc.

My point is, more OPV will add mass to RN?

I am not optimistic to think RN will see man-power increase by 20-30%. Now RN personnel is down to 38990. I think 5% level increase (back to 2021 level = 40650) will be the most we can expect, and that is what is needed to continue the current plan. Thanks to T31 (in particular) and T26 (partly) needs smaller crew than T23, number of escorts "manned" will increase from 10 to 12 or even 13, with 19 escort listed., even if the man-power is only "back to 2021 level". Great improvement. RN will be in the best status after the 2010 cut. (Option: If further 1% man-power increase be there, 400 more, RN can increase 150 crew assigned to vessels. This is what is needed to maintain "3 River B1s in x1.5 manning rotation". In other words, 3 River B1 replacements would become available, and fully active).

In short, RN is living in a man-power limited world.

So, RN is 2031 will be with
- 19 escorts (6 T45, 3 T26, 5 T23, 5 T31)
- and 5 (or 8) OPVs

Why I said "adding OPVs will not add meaningful mass" is,
- firstly, OPV cannot fight
- secondly, I do not foresee "more places for OPVs". Maybe 1 more be needed to keep the operation tempo (1 among the 8 will always in long maintenance), but that's it.
In other word, 5 (or 8) OPV is just enough.

Yes, a T31 (not two) is planned to be sent to Indo-Pacific in the original plan. But, if the T31 be needed in Red sea, RN can send her there, not in the far east. Adding more OPV will just require disbanding more T31s to man them.

I understand this standpont differs, but I cannot be optimistic on man-power, looking at RN history. Note that "man-power crisis" has been on the table from, as I remember, 10 years ago. Many efforts were made, and this is what we see now. I really hope I am wrong, BUT, defense is reality. Betting all on optimistic view will degrade RN capability. For example, even a simple OPV like River B2 (~£100M) can pay for 5-10 more NSM systems. I guess it can in place easily add 24 more CAMM on a two or three T45s (in addition to the currently planned 24). If 5 (or 8) OPVs remains, that is enough, and I prefer NSMs or CAMM than "more" OPV, because "more OPVs" will not add meaningful mass (because it will cut a frigate).

PS I think, T31 with 24-40 CAMM (hopefully) "can be" the best suited asset for Red Sea contribution. Local area air defense capable, out to 20+ km is non-negligible contribution overall. Not much different from FREMM with (only 16) Aster-15. It will support the dead-area of the AAW destroyers.

[EDIT] Note that I totally agree OPV has a good job. Only saying that from the fleet balance point of view, 8 (or even 5) is enough. (partly because fishery tasks has gone).

[abc123]

How many times. OPV 80m, River B2 or you unicorn OPV+ do not add meaningful mass.

Completely disagree.

The non-combatants allow the combatants to focus fully on the areas where they are most required.

Anti-narcotics patrols do not require Frigates or Destroyers but they do require a Wildcat with a Royal Marine and .338 Lapua. NSM, CAMM and Mk41 Strike cells are not required.

Anti-Piracy patrols do not require Frigates or Destroyers but they do require a vessel with a higher sustained speed than an Auxiliary along with an embarked helo. Again NSM, CAMM and Mk41 Strike cells are not required.

A RB2 can provide immediate HADR up to a point but without the embarked helo the level of assistance is severely limited especially if remote communities have been cut off by a natural disaster or victims need to be rapidly rescued from rising flood water.

As stated previously, all RN needs is another 2x T31, 5x OPV+ (with hanger) before 2032 and ideally 1 or 2 extra T26 in the mid 2030s before switching gears to the T83 around 2040.

That’s it.

The T32 program is unnecessary and cannot be crewed without an expansion in headcount ditto any extra T26 but the additional OPVs and 2x T31 could be crewed if the headcount recovers back to the current target.

Well said.

[Poiuytrewq]

Because from 2028 onwards, RN starts to increase mass (actually just regaining), AND man-power for that is needed.

T26-hull1 IOC is Oct 2028. This means her full crew is needed by mid-2026. And T26-hull2 needs her full crew by late-2028 (for late 2029 / early 2030 IOC).
T31-hull1 will (or, must be) developed in the same time frame, and T31-hull2, 3 follows in one-year drumbeat.

In short, RN frigate number (now 11) will rapidly regain to 13 around 2028-2029. Yes, IOC is about 2 years later, and "operational" frigate numbers will not increase by IOC. But, from man-power point of view, RN needs there full crew 1.5-2.5 years before IOC. When all 5 T31 comes in, RN will face serious lack-of-crew problem.

Great analysis.

Now it is already 2024. If RN can lease 2 OPVs from New Zealand (or another 2 from Ireland) from 2025 to 2028, it is good enough. Even if more OPVs be there, operating them will just result in putting some frigates into extended readiness.

Your view is completely understandable but don’t dismiss the political landscape in the UK.

The next administration in Downing Street will have totally different priorities to the current administration and will in all likelihood be centre-left as opposed to centre-right.

Therefore it’s likely many contracts will be awarded to companies in the UK which are little more than highly expensive job creation schemes. It’s even possible that some of the privatisation is undone. One thing is for sure, if the unions aren’t happy then it probably won’t happen.

The “Tilt” to the Indo Pacific will be diluted or largely reversed and any prioritisation of warfighting capability outside of the Euro-Atlantic will be deprioritised. Supercharging foreign aid and HADR will be prioritised and therefore RN must be ready for the political realignment.

The ultimate outcome will be that no ships are built abroad whether designated warships or not. The MRSS and potentially the multi-role T32 could be beneficiaries of this political realignment.

Time will tell.

In RN, one LPD back in action. 11 (not 10) escorts manned. In RFA, Fort Vic. come back in action, and all available Tides are manned. (Even with this case, RFA Argus MUST be disbanded to enable 2nd FSS to be active).

RN and RFA headcount issues must be separated.

RN has to decide on what is to be crewed from the CVFs and the LPDs. It can only be two out of four if the escort and patrol vessels are to be properly crewed.

My opinion is very clear. Sell the LPDs now and plough the saving, which will be meaningful, into the replacements. Replace with 1x but ideally 2x LHDs with a F35 capability. Then operate one CVF within a CSG and one CVF/LHD as a LHA to support the LRGs if required. RN have the manpower to do this but operating both CVFs and one LPD just starves the escort and patrol fleets. If in the future the security landscape worsens, find the crew and operate them all. I understand that this isn’t a popular proposal but the alternative (to delete the LPDs without direct replacement) is strategically incoherent and cost cutting gone mad.

The RFA is a disaster zone. How has HMG allowed such a mess to occur? It’s shameful.

The terms and conditions need to be rewritten and recruitment and retention elevated above all other priorities which will require a permanent funding injection. This money must be found and maintained over the longer term.

Cutting the number of RFA hulls must be resisted. The axe has been swinging for years but the RFA has now effectively collapsed as an entity and must be rebuilt. To a certain extent this has already begun with the 3x FSS and 4x Tides. It could be argued that the FSS hulls 2 & 3 are replacing the Waves but that’s not important. Adding a modest RAS capability to the 4x MRSS would be sufficient to allow the Waves to decommission without direct replacement.

The LSVs and MROSS programs need to mature before proceeding in any direction but reducing the crew allocations through automation is a priority if the hull numbers are to be maximised.

Overall, RN are close to happy times if the headcount can recover and HMG consolidates defence spending around 2.5% which is current government policy.

Although it receives much less attention it’s the RFA that really deserves the funding and support needed to rebuild it back to what it once was.

[tomuk]

OPV+ doesn't exist.

Sorry, why are you saying this? They absolutely do and can list of a number of classes if you care.

However, should the RN prioritise them and what they could do is all up for debate. Personally, I think given the broader priorities they aren’t needed, and the B2 Rivers with a rolling plan for minor (a few single digit £mn) upgrades to the class do make sense.

Is there an OPV+ design in build or on a UK drawing board at a ready to build stage in the UK now?

[tomuk]

https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... s.html?m=1

Looking at all the past RAN plan, the ambition will never be met. But, cutting 2 ANZAC will be solid, 6 remaining. Along with 3 Hobert class and 6 T26RAN, 4-6 light frigates shall be there, at most.

I shall say I am far from pessimistic, just learning from the history = being realistic. Many many histories there are.

But, anyway, RAN will see better investments than now they get. This is very good. The "2-4 light frigates' initial batch", to be build in foreign country, will meet the schedule and cost. 4-2 more will be built in Australia, but with delay.

The most critical issue is man-power. I see no practical measure how to solve it within a decade. I might be pessimistic here, though.

I would agree I thought it was another off kilter post by the author of the blog.

The LOSVs more than likely are a complete boondoggle and as for the Tier 2 ships they could be a light as an Alpha3000 and the likelihood of Australia buying all 11 is more than optimistic.

[tomuk]

How many times. OPV 80m, River B2 or you unicorn OPV+ do not add meaningful mass.

Completely disagree.

The non-combatants allow the combatants to focus fully on the areas where they are most required.

Anti-narcotics patrols do not require Frigates or Destroyers but they do require a Wildcat with a Royal Marine and .338 Lapua. NSM, CAMM and Mk41 Strike cells are not required.

Anti-Piracy patrols do not require Frigates or Destroyers but they do require a vessel with a higher sustained speed than an Auxiliary along with an embarked helo. Again NSM, CAMM and Mk41 Strike cells are not required.

A RB2 can provide immediate HADR up to a point but without the embarked helo the level of assistance is severely limited especially if remote communities have been cut off by a natural disaster or victims need to be rapidly rescued from rising flood water.

As stated previously, all RN needs is another 2x T31, 5x OPV+ (with hanger) before 2032 and ideally 1 or 2 extra T26 in the mid 2030s before switching gears to the T83 around 2040.

That’s it.

The T32 program is unnecessary and cannot be crewed without an expansion in headcount ditto any extra T26 but the additional OPVs and 2x T31 could be crewed if the headcount recovers back to the current target.

OPV+ isn't going to happen however much you dream of it.

[Poiuytrewq]

OPV+ isn't going to happen however much you dream of it.

It is interesting how you have been triggered by such a simple and non controversial suggestion.

[tomuk]

OPV+ isn't going to happen however much you dream of it.

It is interesting how you have been triggered by such a simple and non controversial suggestion.

It isn't is a simple and non controversial suggestion. And if I'm triggered it's because of your and repulses continuous pro OPV dribble which drowns out any serious discussion.

[Repulse]

OPV+ isn't going to happen however much you dream of it.

It is interesting how you have been triggered by such a simple and non controversial suggestion.

It isn't is a simple and non controversial suggestion. And if I'm triggered it's because of your and repulses continuous pro OPV dribble which drowns out any serious discussion.

You should try reading your own nonsense.

Your and other’s obsession for mediocre T31s mass has to be challenged, it has no requirement ls just some fantasy that you can have magical warships on the cheap. If you want to start to contribute to a real conversation perhaps explain why the RN needs this middle mass / fat given the threats and the UK interests.

[Repulse]

Is there an OPV+ design in build or on a UK drawing board at a ready to build stage in the UK now?

No there isn’t, but your statement said there wasn’t one at all. Firstly, these ships aren’t complex, changing a production line to do this is possible in a relatively short period so it’s a moot point compared to the glacial pace to get things done. Order made today and Babcock would for example have 3 years to plan - more than enough especially if building an existing design under licence.

What’s more, I don’t have any obsession in keeping shipyards open if they don’t meet a need. We could easily order from the French, Dutch or Italians.

Lastly, I don’t see a OPV+ a priority, I see a higher priority retaining the number minor warship fleet for all the reasons and roles I’ve explained to be a higher priority and it should not be sacrificed to a misguided religious fever for light frigates that will kill the RN as a relevant force.

[tomuk]

Is there an OPV+ design in build or on a UK drawing board at a ready to build stage in the UK now?

No there isn’t, but your statement said there wasn’t one at all.

That maybe how you want to interpret my statement but my question to you was what as I was inferring with my prior statement that there is no ready OPV+ programme available.

Firstly, these ships aren’t complex, changing a production line to do this is possible in a relatively short period so it’s a moot point compared to the glacial pace to get things done. Order made today and Babcock would for example have 3 years to plan - more than enough especially if building an existing design under licence.

What’s more, I don’t have any obsession in keeping shipyards open if they don’t meet a need. We could easily order from the French, Dutch or Italians.

The other OPV obsessive was demanding these OPV+ ships to fill the gap in the fleet we have now before delivery of T31. A three year wait until they go into production isn't really going to cut it is it?

But there is no need to change the production line or license another design, we already have a design that can provide more than an OPV could ever dream of T31.

Lastly, I don’t see a OPV+ a priority, I see a higher priority retaining the number minor warship fleet for all the reasons and roles I’ve explained to be a higher priority and it should not be sacrificed to a misguided religious fever for light frigates that will kill the RN as a relevant force.

RN won't be a relevant force because it won't retain a number of minor warships? You're hilarious.

I'd rather suggest that the RN won't be relevant if it can't continue to field the required fleet of escorts both for the CSG and other commitments.

To quote our the Australian review led by retired American admiral

The OPV is an inefficient use of resources for civil maritime security operations
and does not possess the survivability and self-defence systems to contribute to a
surface combatant mission.

[tomuk]

OPV+ isn't going to happen however much you dream of it.

It is interesting how you have been triggered by such a simple and non controversial suggestion.

It isn't is a simple and non controversial suggestion. And if I'm triggered it's because of your and repulses continuous pro OPV dribble which drowns out any serious discussion.

You should try reading your own nonsense.

Your and other’s obsession for mediocre T31s mass has to be challenged, it has no requirement ls just some fantasy that you can have magical warships on the cheap. If you want to start to contribute to a real conversation perhaps explain why the RN needs this middle mass / fat given the threats and the UK interests.

It isn't an obsession it is realty five are on order to replace the five T23 GP.

The T31 isn't mediocre it provides a platform that is inherently easy to maintain, requires lower crewing and provides great range and capability cost effectively. It can scale from a more than competent light frigate all the way up to a small but potent AAW destroyer.

So what are these requirements that you've set out that your OPV, plus or otherwise can fulfil that T31 can't?

[Repulse]

RN won't be a relevant force because it won't retain a number of minor warships? You're hilarious.

Your naivety sums it up - if you think a fleet of 24 escorts and nothing else, of which probably a 1/3rd will not be able to be crewed, is the right and sustainable navy for the nation you are deluded.

To quote our the Australian review led by retired American admiral

The OPV is an inefficient use of resources for civil maritime security operations
and does not possess the survivability and self-defence systems to contribute to a
surface combatant mission.

How’s this relevant for the RN? The RAN has a regional aggressor with a large navy and an aggressive fishing fleet, a fleet of twelve OPVs probably isn’t the right fit for them.

Anyhow, the RN needs 7-8 OPVs, it’s also needs a similar number of ships to replace the MCM fleet which isn’t unlikely to be a design a million miles away from an OPV (it will be a million miles away from a T31).

[Repulse]

It isn't an obsession it is realty five are on order to replace the five T23 GP.

The T31 isn't mediocre it provides a platform that is inherently easy to maintain, requires lower crewing and provides great range and capability cost effectively. It can scale from a more than competent light frigate all the way up to a small but potent AAW destroyer.

The RN does not need a GP frigate - it needs more AAW and ASW first rate assets to meet the requirement to counter Russia as part of NATO and meaningfully contribute globally.

Yes, you can spend more money on the T31 to add this and that, but the design will always be compromised as it was ordered for a different requirement.

So what are these requirements that you've set out that your OPV, plus or otherwise can fulfil that T31 can't?

You are looking at this the wrong way round - what does the T31 bring that is a priority requirement to the roles being played by the OPVs today, and is it worth the cost in £s and more importantly crew. No one has yet come up with anything to say the additional cost and crew is justified - it is money and people that are better used elsewhere.

[Tempest414]

If the requirement is to face Russia alone then we are all good apart from needing say 15 corvettes as said the Russian Atlantic fleet has 12 escorts + 30 Corvettes and 13 SSNs + 6 SSKs

The RB2's are doing a good job and if given the upgrade I have put forward could do that job even better but they are not frigates

As said above the North Atlantic is covered by our Tier 1 fleet as it should be but this is where the cheaper T-31's and OPVs come in keeping our SLOC open in the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean two areas that have been forgotten about due to peace time thinking but now China is pushing into both these areas and we will need more than just opvs to counter this

[Tempest414]

OPV+ doesn't exist.

Sorry, why are you saying this? They absolutely do and can list of a number of classes if you care.

However, should the RN prioritise them and what they could do is all up for debate. Personally, I think given the broader priorities they aren’t needed, and the B2 Rivers with a rolling plan for minor (a few single digit £mn) upgrades to the class do make sense.

Is there an OPV+ design in build or on a UK drawing board at a ready to build stage in the UK now?

I would say there are two ready to go with very minor design work that would needed to any design

1) The 90 meter RB2 fitted with a 3D radar , 57mm , 2 x 30mm and given Peregrine UAV

2) The 105 meter Khareef/ Leander design with a 3D radar , 57mm plus 40mm on the hangar roof and a wildcat

[Pte. James Frazer]

It isn't an obsession it is realty five are on order to replace the five T23 GP.

The T31 isn't mediocre it provides a platform that is inherently easy to maintain, requires lower crewing and provides great range and capability cost effectively. It can scale from a more than competent light frigate all the way up to a small but potent AAW destroyer.

The RN does not need a GP frigate - it needs more AAW and ASW first rate assets to meet the requirement to counter Russia as part of NATO and meaningfully contribute globally.

Yes, you can spend more money on the T31 to add this and that, but the design will always be compromised as it was ordered for a different requirement.

So what are these requirements that you've set out that your OPV, plus or otherwise can fulfil that T31 can't?

You are looking at this the wrong way round - what does the T31 bring that is a priority requirement to the roles being played by the OPVs today, and is it worth the cost in £s and more importantly crew. No one has yet come up with anything to say the additional cost and crew is justified - it is money and people that are better used elsewhere.

Several points:

The RN has 8 OPVs, 5 of which are doing an excellent job forward deployed. If money were available, these could be moderately enhanced as this thread has discussed ad nauseum.

The RN doesn't need any more OPVs. Where would more OPVs be deployed to where they would be an asset rather than a defensive liability as gap fillers for Tier 1 or Tier 2 escorts?

The anti-T31 crowd on this thread is fixated that forward deploying T31 to replace a RB2 adds nothing significant that an 'off the shelf' OPV+ couldn't do.

This attitude I can sympathise with as it stems from RN plans to forward deploy T31s.

It's those plans that need to change imo.

Leave the RB2s where they are imo. Adding a singleton OPV+ or even a Tier 1 escort isn't going to move the needle of the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. A RB2, however, is a low-cost 'soft power' extension adding to (takennote SW1!) HMGs diplomatic/trade/defence engagement policy wishes, which doesn't need a Tier 1 or Tier 2 escort.

Problem is that when contributors define their preferred OPV+ systems they end up with a T31 spec, but think that thise additional hulls can be built and outfitted in a jiffy.

Where Fergusons...about the only new build UK yard that might have some spare new build capacity? God help us on the outfitting. Appledore? Busy with FSS bow blocks and when was the last time they delivered something with a TACTICOS combat management system?

In short, the UK is outfitting yard capacity constrained...and apprentices take time to train....which has only just begun.

Then there's the problem of budget. So let's just say for the sake of argument that 8 OPV+s could be built abroad for ~ £1 bn (which I find fanciful given the proposed spec) and that budget can be found.

But let's not dwell on the issue of delivery schedule (3 years dream on) or crewing.....

Personally, I'd rather the RN spend £1bn on putting 32-strike length Mk41s with ExLS for quad packing up to 128 CAMM + 8-16 NSMs on each T31.

Forget double crewing and forward basing (yes that requires a shift from the RN), and assign them to 2x Middle East Gulfs, 2x SNMG 1&2 and 1x FRE.

A far better (i.e.more realistic and added value) use of notional resources imo.

[SW1]

It isn't an obsession it is realty five are on order to replace the five T23 GP.

The T31 isn't mediocre it provides a platform that is inherently easy to maintain, requires lower crewing and provides great range and capability cost effectively. It can scale from a more than competent light frigate all the way up to a small but potent AAW destroyer.

The RN does not need a GP frigate - it needs more AAW and ASW first rate assets to meet the requirement to counter Russia as part of NATO and meaningfully contribute globally.

Yes, you can spend more money on the T31 to add this and that, but the design will always be compromised as it was ordered for a different requirement.

So what are these requirements that you've set out that your OPV, plus or otherwise can fulfil that T31 can't?

You are looking at this the wrong way round - what does the T31 bring that is a priority requirement to the roles being played by the OPVs today, and is it worth the cost in £s and more importantly crew. No one has yet come up with anything to say the additional cost and crew is justified - it is money and people that are better used elsewhere.

Several points:

The RN has 8 OPVs, 5 of which are doing an excellent job forward deployed. If money were available, these could be moderately enhanced as this thread has discussed ad nauseum.

The RN doesn't need any more OPVs. Where would more OPVs be deployed to where they would be an asset rather than a defensive liability as gap fillers for Tier 1 or Tier 2 escorts?

The anti-T31 crowd on this thread is fixated that forward deploying T31 to replace a RB2 adds nothing significant that an 'off the shelf' OPV+ couldn't do.

This attitude I can sympathise with as it stems from RN plans to forward deploy T31s.

It's those plans that need to change imo.

Leave the RB2s where they are imo. Adding a singleton OPV+ or even a Tier 1 escort isn't going to move the needle of the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. A RB2, however, is a low-cost 'soft power' extension adding to (takennote SW1!) HMGs diplomatic/trade/defence engagement policy wishes, which doesn't need a Tier 1 or Tier 2 escort.

Problem is that when contributors define their preferred OPV+ systems they end up with a T31 spec, but think that thise additional hulls can be built and outfitted in a jiffy.

Where Fergusons...about the only new build UK yard that might have some spare new build capacity? God help us on the outfitting. Appledore? Busy with FSS bow blocks and when was the last time they delivered something with a TACTICOS combat management system?

In short, the UK is outfitting yard capacity constrained...and apprentices take time to train....which has only just begun.

Then there's the problem of budget. So let's just say for the sake of argument that 8 OPV+s could be built abroad for ~ £1 bn (which I find fanciful given the proposed spec) and that budget can be found.

But let's not dwell on the issue of delivery schedule (3 years dream on) or crewing.....

Personally, I'd rather the RN spend £1bn on putting 32-strike length Mk41s with ExLS for quad packing up to 128 CAMM + 8-16 NSMs on each T31.

Forget double crewing and forward basing (yes that requires a shift from the RN), and assign them to 2x Middle East Gulfs, 2x SNMG 1&2 and 1x FRE.

A far better (i.e.more realistic and added value) use of notional resources imo.

Soft power is a fiction. A fiction perpetuated by this government and its many shades since Blair, based on it playing nice in the media.

There is economic power and there is military power. If China comes along and offers 10 new power stations on very east terms to Bangladesh or a nice new 500m dollar port to Ghana, it’s not gonna compete with a nice cocktail party on a river boat no matter how much HMG wishes it were so.

[Tempest414]

It isn't an obsession it is realty five are on order to replace the five T23 GP.

The T31 isn't mediocre it provides a platform that is inherently easy to maintain, requires lower crewing and provides great range and capability cost effectively. It can scale from a more than competent light frigate all the way up to a small but potent AAW destroyer.

The RN does not need a GP frigate - it needs more AAW and ASW first rate assets to meet the requirement to counter Russia as part of NATO and meaningfully contribute globally.

Yes, you can spend more money on the T31 to add this and that, but the design will always be compromised as it was ordered for a different requirement.

So what are these requirements that you've set out that your OPV, plus or otherwise can fulfil that T31 can't?

You are looking at this the wrong way round - what does the T31 bring that is a priority requirement to the roles being played by the OPVs today, and is it worth the cost in £s and more importantly crew. No one has yet come up with anything to say the additional cost and crew is justified - it is money and people that are better used elsewhere.

Several points:

The RN has 8 OPVs, 5 of which are doing an excellent job forward deployed. If money were available, these could be moderately enhanced as this thread has discussed ad nauseum.

The RN doesn't need any more OPVs. Where would more OPVs be deployed to where they would be an asset rather than a defensive liability as gap fillers for Tier 1 or Tier 2 escorts?

The anti-T31 crowd on this thread is fixated that forward deploying T31 to replace a RB2 adds nothing significant that an 'off the shelf' OPV+ couldn't do.

This attitude I can sympathise with as it stems from RN plans to forward deploy T31s.

It's those plans that need to change imo.

Leave the RB2s where they are imo. Adding a singleton OPV+ or even a Tier 1 escort isn't going to move the needle of the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. A RB2, however, is a low-cost 'soft power' extension adding to (takennote SW1!) HMGs diplomatic/trade/defence engagement policy wishes, which doesn't need a Tier 1 or Tier 2 escort.

Problem is that when contributors define their preferred OPV+ systems they end up with a T31 spec, but think that thise additional hulls can be built and outfitted in a jiffy.

Where Fergusons...about the only new build UK yard that might have some spare new build capacity? God help us on the outfitting. Appledore? Busy with FSS bow blocks and when was the last time they delivered something with a TACTICOS combat management system?

In short, the UK is outfitting yard capacity constrained...and apprentices take time to train....which has only just begun.

Then there's the problem of budget. So let's just say for the sake of argument that 8 OPV+s could be built abroad for ~ £1 bn (which I find fanciful given the proposed spec) and that budget can be found.

But let's not dwell on the issue of delivery schedule (3 years dream on) or crewing.....

Personally, I'd rather the RN spend £1bn on putting 32-strike length Mk41s with ExLS for quad packing up to 128 CAMM + 8-16 NSMs on each T31.

Forget double crewing and forward basing (yes that requires a shift from the RN), and assign them to 2x Middle East Gulfs, 2x SNMG 1&2 and 1x FRE.

A far better (i.e.more realistic and added value) use of notional resources imo.

rather than fitting 32 MK-41s to Type 31 a better use of money and time would be to give T-31 40 CAMM in place of the MK-41's and 16 NSM plus a VDS this along with its Wildcat would be a well rounded GP frigate

Also the RB2's do need a stepped upgrade first the RN needs more Peregrine UAV to give the OPV's better OTH eye and ears next with the growing drone threat the 30mm just will not cut it they need the 40mm or 57mm and last if the money is there a new 3D radar

[Pte. James Frazer]

It isn't an obsession it is realty five are on order to replace the five T23 GP.

The T31 isn't mediocre it provides a platform that is inherently easy to maintain, requires lower crewing and provides great range and capability cost effectively. It can scale from a more than competent light frigate all the way up to a small but potent AAW destroyer.

The RN does not need a GP frigate - it needs more AAW and ASW first rate assets to meet the requirement to counter Russia as part of NATO and meaningfully contribute globally.

Yes, you can spend more money on the T31 to add this and that, but the design will always be compromised as it was ordered for a different requirement.

So what are these requirements that you've set out that your OPV, plus or otherwise can fulfil that T31 can't?

You are looking at this the wrong way round - what does the T31 bring that is a priority requirement to the roles being played by the OPVs today, and is it worth the cost in £s and more importantly crew. No one has yet come up with anything to say the additional cost and crew is justified - it is money and people that are better used elsewhere.

Several points:

The RN has 8 OPVs, 5 of which are doing an excellent job forward deployed. If money were available, these could be moderately enhanced as this thread has discussed ad nauseum.

The RN doesn't need any more OPVs. Where would more OPVs be deployed to where they would be an asset rather than a defensive liability as gap fillers for Tier 1 or Tier 2 escorts?

The anti-T31 crowd on this thread is fixated that forward deploying T31 to replace a RB2 adds nothing significant that an 'off the shelf' OPV+ couldn't do.

This attitude I can sympathise with as it stems from RN plans to forward deploy T31s.

It's those plans that need to change imo.

Leave the RB2s where they are imo. Adding a singleton OPV+ or even a Tier 1 escort isn't going to move the needle of the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. A RB2, however, is a low-cost 'soft power' extension adding to (takennote SW1!) HMGs diplomatic/trade/defence engagement policy wishes, which doesn't need a Tier 1 or Tier 2 escort.

Problem is that when contributors define their preferred OPV+ systems they end up with a T31 spec, but think that thise additional hulls can be built and outfitted in a jiffy.

Where Fergusons...about the only new build UK yard that might have some spare new build capacity? God help us on the outfitting. Appledore? Busy with FSS bow blocks and when was the last time they delivered something with a TACTICOS combat management system?

In short, the UK is outfitting yard capacity constrained...and apprentices take time to train....which has only just begun.

Then there's the problem of budget. So let's just say for the sake of argument that 8 OPV+s could be built abroad for ~ £1 bn (which I find fanciful given the proposed spec) and that budget can be found.

But let's not dwell on the issue of delivery schedule (3 years dream on) or crewing.....

Personally, I'd rather the RN spend £1bn on putting 32-strike length Mk41s with ExLS for quad packing up to 128 CAMM + 8-16 NSMs on each T31.

Forget double crewing and forward basing (yes that requires a shift from the RN), and assign them to 2x Middle East Gulfs, 2x SNMG 1&2 and 1x FRE.

A far better (i.e.more realistic and added value) use of notional resources imo.

Soft power is a fiction. A fiction perpetuated by this government and its many shades since Blair, based on it playing nice in the media.

There is economic power and there is military power. If China comes along and offers 10 new power stations on very east terms to Bangladesh or a nice new 500m dollar port to Ghana, it’s not gonna compete with a nice cocktail party on a river boat no matter how much HMG wishes it were so.

Well since the creation of 'mass media' all powers seem to have embraced 'information ops' as a key tool in their armoury, whether Crimea, Boer War, WW1, WW2 or now electoral interference through social media etc.

Let's call soft power the 'ability to persuade/dissuade' and it's a key part of the UKs DNA e.g. BBC, legal system etc. and still one of its strengths.

RN and RB2s are another tool in that box.

We can't counter China's economic bribery $ for $ so need to use our box of tools.

When the rubber hits the road there is no substitute for military power, but until then....

[Poiuytrewq]

It isn't is a simple and non controversial suggestion.

It really is simple and non controversial for most highly developed nations who have patrol vessels with hangers for an embarked helicopter as part of their fleets.

That I was inferring with my prior statement that there is no ready OPV+ programme available.

There is no ready programme available?

Ready where? In the U.K. or in rest of the world?

Did you think the same about the T31 program before OMT turned up?

The other OPV obsessive was demanding these OPV+ ships to fill the gap in the fleet we have now before delivery of T31. A three year wait until they go into production isn't really going to cut it is it?

It’s an opinion, not a demand. You are beginning to sound like you are throwing your toys out of the pram.

The 5x T31 will commission by the early 2030’s if Babcock can pull off a miracle which is far from assured especially as RN are now flirting with the idea of upgrading in-build.

The 3x RB1’s are due to decommission in 2028 and the T23’s are struggling to reach their respective OSD’s.

It’s an availability car crash waiting to happen.

What is your solution?

To quote our the Australian review led by retired American admiral

The OPV is an inefficient use of resources for civil maritime security operations
and does not possess the survivability and self-defence systems to contribute to a
surface combatant mission.

When I read that in the report I thought it was a joke. Especially considering how many OPVs the USGC operates globally.

Does it make a difference when they are called cutters?

[Poiuytrewq]

I think the solution is somewhere half way, £1.5B could be found…

1. Turn T31 into full GP frigates by adding a (relatively cheap) bow sonar, 8xNSM and 32xMK-41. If half of these are filled with CAMM/ER/MR and half with FC/ASW or Tomahawk, and a containerized VDS is added as needed, they would become fearsome and really well balanced GP frigates. Base 3 in the UK (one in maintenance and two assigned to NATO/ARG(N)/FRE) and two in the Indian Ocean for Kipion/ARG(S)/choke point escort and you’re all set. Including weapons, how much would this cost? £700-900M, of which £500-600M would be weapons cost and £200-300M would be sensors, mainly the sonars, and general adaptation work? I’d take that in a heartbeat.

2. Replace the RB1s with the RB2s based in the Caribbean and the Far East, and replace those with three new-build larger OPVs with a hangar and UAVs and a helo, which would be very useful in first response HADR in these areas (hurricanes and earthquakes, anyone?). The UK can get three of those for £200M each…

This would be manpower neutral (or thereabouts) and could all be done relatively quickly maybe by 2030-32…

[Pte. James Frazer]

It isn't an obsession it is realty five are on order to replace the five T23 GP.

The T31 isn't mediocre it provides a platform that is inherently easy to maintain, requires lower crewing and provides great range and capability cost effectively. It can scale from a more than competent light frigate all the way up to a small but potent AAW destroyer.

The RN does not need a GP frigate - it needs more AAW and ASW first rate assets to meet the requirement to counter Russia as part of NATO and meaningfully contribute globally.

Yes, you can spend more money on the T31 to add this and that, but the design will always be compromised as it was ordered for a different requirement.

So what are these requirements that you've set out that your OPV, plus or otherwise can fulfil that T31 can't?

You are looking at this the wrong way round - what does the T31 bring that is a priority requirement to the roles being played by the OPVs today, and is it worth the cost in £s and more importantly crew. No one has yet come up with anything to say the additional cost and crew is justified - it is money and people that are better used elsewhere.

Several points:

The RN has 8 OPVs, 5 of which are doing an excellent job forward deployed. If money were available, these could be moderately enhanced as this thread has discussed ad nauseum.

The RN doesn't need any more OPVs. Where would more OPVs be deployed to where they would be an asset rather than a defensive liability as gap fillers for Tier 1 or Tier 2 escorts?

The anti-T31 crowd on this thread is fixated that forward deploying T31 to replace a RB2 adds nothing significant that an 'off the shelf' OPV+ couldn't do.

This attitude I can sympathise with as it stems from RN plans to forward deploy T31s.

It's those plans that need to change imo.

Leave the RB2s where they are imo. Adding a singleton OPV+ or even a Tier 1 escort isn't going to move the needle of the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. A RB2, however, is a low-cost 'soft power' extension adding to (takennote SW1!) HMGs diplomatic/trade/defence engagement policy wishes, which doesn't need a Tier 1 or Tier 2 escort.

Problem is that when contributors define their preferred OPV+ systems they end up with a T31 spec, but think that thise additional hulls can be built and outfitted in a jiffy.

Where Fergusons...about the only new build UK yard that might have some spare new build capacity? God help us on the outfitting. Appledore? Busy with FSS bow blocks and when was the last time they delivered something with a TACTICOS combat management system?

In short, the UK is outfitting yard capacity constrained...and apprentices take time to train....which has only just begun.

Then there's the problem of budget. So let's just say for the sake of argument that 8 OPV+s could be built abroad for ~ £1 bn (which I find fanciful given the proposed spec) and that budget can be found.

But let's not dwell on the issue of delivery schedule (3 years dream on) or crewing.....

Personally, I'd rather the RN spend £1bn on putting 32-strike length Mk41s with ExLS for quad packing up to 128 CAMM + 8-16 NSMs on each T31.

Forget double crewing and forward basing (yes that requires a shift from the RN), and assign them to 2x Middle East Gulfs, 2x SNMG 1&2 and 1x FRE.

A far better (i.e.more realistic and added value) use of notional resources imo.

rather than fitting 32 MK-41s to Type 31 a better use of money and time would be to give T-31 40 CAMM in place of the MK-41's and 16 NSM plus a VDS this along with its Wildcat would be a well rounded GP frigate

Also the RB2's do need a stepped upgrade first the RN needs more Peregrine UAV to give the OPV's better OTH eye and ears next with the growing drone threat the 30mm just will not cut it they need the 40mm or 57mm and last if the money is there a new 3D radar

Not bad, an improvement, but I think Red Sea is showing that even 40 (or 48 on T26) AAW missiles is now marginal in a sustained shooting war. 12-24 not adequate (32 borderline).

Having the ability to have 64-96-128 CAMMCAMM-ER would provide depth of magazine insurance to suit requirements, allowing T31 to be a Tier 1 local AAW escort/CSG participant i.e. most of what Repulse is after. Sure NS110 won't give the best detection range (no will Artisan) but with data linking it might even allow T31 to act as ABM missile silo directed by T45/83 like a manned version of the planned Aussie LOSV.

Don't think TAS is the first priority for T31 given its radiated noise attenuation limitations but as said upthread the RN could always add a containerised CAPTAS 2 or 4.

With RB2, Peregrine should be the priority imo to improve ISR, maybe USV Pacific 24s armed with remote 50cals and LRADs, as recently tested by NavyX. 57mm ideally but that'll need a 3D/4D radar and maybe an upgrade to the CMS.