Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

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.

Soft power is there. If you do not like to call it a "power", just call it "diplomatic influence".

It is not hard power. River B2 cannot fight. However, its existence does matter. It is a sign that UK is "involved" in the area.

To have a "say", you must be there. That's it. It is more phycological effect, not material. Lack of deployment to far east from 2010 to recently, made UK's military influence in this region very very low. We, in far east, never felt UK power and never thought we shall consult with UK to solve problems here. This is simply because we all know UK has no interest here.

"If UK has any interest here, UK will have something here. As UK had nothing here, UK had no interest and hence no influence". This is the very simple logic.

[Pte. James Frazer]

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…

John, very similar to my thoughts articulated earlier. Not hung up on splitting hairs on bow sonars etc...it's the principle that is important and we're on the same page.

Everyone assumes the RB1s can't be run on for another 5 years beyond 2028 with some tlc until Appledore can build some replacements.

If you wanted to 'gap' some capability then a phased withdrawl of RB1 post 2028 could be considered since MCA/Borderforce are responsible for policing/fisheries and navigation training/life at sea experience could be done on a Ferguson ferry if needs be.

[donald_of_tokyo]

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.

Personally, I will just be OK with the current RN plan. Compared to all proposed here, I do not think it is NOT so bad. Similar in out put and feasible in resource. Well balanced, I think.

[serge750]

Have you guys seen Peregrine's much bigger brother, the S-300? Brings a lot more to the party:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... pter-s-300

https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.c ... rean-navy/

[Pte. James Frazer]

Have you guys seen Peregrine's much bigger brother, the S-300? Brings a lot more to the party:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... pter-s-300

https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.c ... rean-navy/

Yes I think it does, but might overlap somewhat with Leonardo's Proteus

[wargame_insomniac]

3 weeks in hospital, whilst I tried to keep up reading threads with the briefest of replies when I had signal and/or battery and then a hurricane is directed at the Current & Future Escorts thread. And the cause at core of hurricane is OPV??!!

[Ron5]

Have you guys seen Peregrine's much bigger brother, the S-300? Brings a lot more to the party:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... pter-s-300

https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.c ... rean-navy/

Yes I think it does, but might overlap somewhat with Leonardo's Proteus

Is that a problem?

[tomuk]

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.

Who is saying nothing else? We currently have eight OPVs then it will be five OPVs when we used to have 4.

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).

Its relevant because it sums up he reality of OPVs.

As to MCM the Sandowns are being replaced by autonomous systems and the Hunts may be replaced with more of the same or with a number of motherships either OSV style like Stirling Castle or more traditional MCM like the Dutch\Belgian and now French City class. (who we share dev of autonomous systems with)

[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.

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....

Both of these have been damaged in the over the last 8 months both at home and overseas

[tomuk]

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.

What claptrap. A ship based on a NATO AAW frigate will be compromised because it was ordered with a lesser weapons fit but the ability to upgrade it was retained in its design?

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.

No you're the one looking at it the wrong way round. Wasting crew and resources is being done by doing pointless low level engagement.
An OPV we still be an OPV it can't be upgraded.

T31 is a frigate and can be an entry level light frigate with small weapons fit or can be upgraded to a role specific AAW frigate or a more rounded role like the Swordfish version.

[SW1]

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.

Soft power is there. If you do not like to call it a "power", just call it "diplomatic influence".

It is not hard power. River B2 cannot fight. However, its existence does matter. It is a sign that UK is "involved" in the area.

To have a "say", you must be there. That's it. It is more phycological effect, not material. Lack of deployment to far east from 2010 to recently, made UK's military influence in this region very very low. We, in far east, never felt UK power and never thought we shall consult with UK to solve problems here. This is simply because we all know UK has no interest here.

"If UK has any interest here, UK will have something here. As UK had nothing here, UK had no interest and hence no influence". This is the very simple logic.

Diplomacy is basically broken down to how much money where does it go and what do I get in return. The law of economic warfare.

Diplomacy is done by the diplomatic staff at the embassies across the world that presence is permanent where the decision makers are. If you don’t get what you want the coercion is by force. How we have executed our economic and military force over the last few hundred years has been on the best information and writing the legal framework to allow us to act. 100 plus years ago it was ensuring we had the legal right to stop shipping of belligerents and shipping of neutral countries trading with belligerents

The UK doesn’t have military influence in the Asia Pacific. But we have often consulted through our 5 eyes partners to solve problems. You mention the lack of deployments, the uk has had a permanent military presence in the region the whole time the Gurkha battalion in Brunei. The same Gurkha battalion that recently exercised in Japan. The same unit that Conducted operations in East Timor with HMS Glasgow. I find it interesting that they seemingly are never counted in all these discussions.

[Pte. James Frazer]

Have you guys seen Peregrine's much bigger brother, the S-300? Brings a lot more to the party:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... pter-s-300

https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.c ... rean-navy/

Yes I think it does, but might overlap somewhat with Leonardo's Proteus

Is that a problem?

No per se, but think MoD/RN is committed to Leonardo delivering prototype of Proteus (2025?) so don't think there'll be any immediate jump to procure Schiebel S-300, if ever.

Let's not forget that South Korea has fielded S-100 for 10 years or so....and the RN is still waiting for HMS Lancaster "to become available", or words to that effect, before it gets its first...

Good luck to Schiebel....

[SW1]

3 weeks in hospital, whilst I tried to keep up reading threads with the briefest of replies when I had signal and/or battery and then a hurricane is directed at the Current & Future Escorts thread. And the cause at core of hurricane is OPV??!!

I hope your on the mend and back to more regular contributions going fwd

[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…

Almost completely agree.

IMO HMG are now in a pretty serious bind. On the one hand the DS is publicly stating that the U.K. is now in a pre-war phase. That’s new are requires a response beyond a press release.

On the other hand we are to believe that the 2010 and 2015 plans which didn’t change much in 2020/2022 are still the most reasonable way for the U.K. to proceed. The reality is that HMT is refusing to up the funding for Defense and HMG is refusing to take some potentially unpopular decisions to reallocate extra funding towards Defence. So how can RN respond within the current fiscal envelope or perhaps with a slight increase?

IMO your proposal is excellent albeit I would suggest a modest increase in numbers.

• Build T31 hulls 1 & 2 as planned without adaption. Dispatch as soon as practically possible to the Red Sea and the Gulf to act as choke point escorts.

• Add T31 hulls 6 & 7 to the production pipeline in Rosyth. Maximise the remaining 5x T31 will 32x Mk41 and 16x NSM. That’s it, build them asap.

• Conduct a rapid OPV+ program to build 5x hulls asap. If BAE really can’t stretch a River or build a 115m Leander for the right price then bring in another foreign design like the T31 program successfully achieved. It would be in BAE’s interest to make it work as it could dilute Babcocks influence in the U.K. escort market.

• Decommission the RB1’s as soon as the OPV+ replace the RB2’s. Operate 3x RB2’s in the U.K. EEZ and maintain HMS Forth in the Falklands. Keep the 5th RB2 in refit/reserve.

• Replace the 2x RB2’s with 2x OPV+ in the Indo Pacific and operate 3x T31 EoS.

• Operate the remaining 4x T31 from the UK.

• Foward base 1x OPV+ in the Caribbean and 1x OPV+ in Gibraltar to concentrate on West Africa and the South Atlantic. Maintain the 5th OPV+ in refit/reserve.

• The T45 can concentrate on the CSG and the T23ASW and T26 can concentrate on the CSG and TAPS.

It amounts to 2 extra OPVs plus 2 extra T31 plus the maximisation of the T31 class.

Compared to what Australia have announced this week it’s small beer.

[Poiuytrewq]

3 weeks in hospital,

I hope your on the mend and back to more regular contributions going fwd

Seconded.

I hope you are feeling tip-top very soon.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Diplomacy is basically broken down to how much money where does it go and what do I get in return. The law of economic warfare.

Diplomacy is done by the diplomatic staff at the embassies across the world that presence is permanent where the decision makers are. If you don’t get what you want the coercion is by force. How we have executed our economic and military force over the last few hundred years has been on the best information and writing the legal framework to allow us to act. 100 plus years ago it was ensuring we had the legal right to stop shipping of belligerents and shipping of neutral countries trading with belligerents

Yes and no. Presence support the diplomacy very much. This is fact, not fantasy.

The UK doesn’t have military influence in the Asia Pacific. But we have often consulted through our 5 eyes partners to solve problems.

UK sent an escort to FPDA every year before 2010. Why? Because there is a good influence. UK lost it. Now regaining it. Just it.

You mention the lack of deployments, the uk has had a permanent military presence in the region the whole time the Gurkha battalion in Brunei. The same Gurkha battalion that recently exercised in Japan. The same unit that Conducted operations in East Timor with HMS Glasgow. I find it interesting that they seemingly are never counted in all these discussions.

Gurkha had never came to Japan until recently. I think because it costs. Sending a River B2 will be more cheap, and visit many nations. Many.

HMS Glasgow? Exactly, that fact is showing the importance of sending a ship to far east. Again, UK had been sending escorts to far easy every year until 2010. Why? Because it is very effective. Unfortunately, escort cut from 23 to 19 on 2010 prevented it. So RN is restarting it using the two River B2s. I think it is clearly showing why sending two OPVs or an escort to far east is important.

[SW1]

Diplomacy is basically broken down to how much money where does it go and what do I get in return. The law of economic warfare.

Diplomacy is done by the diplomatic staff at the embassies across the world that presence is permanent where the decision makers are. If you don’t get what you want the coercion is by force. How we have executed our economic and military force over the last few hundred years has been on the best information and writing the legal framework to allow us to act. 100 plus years ago it was ensuring we had the legal right to stop shipping of belligerents and shipping of neutral countries trading with belligerents

Yes and no. Presence support the diplomacy very much. This is fact, not fantasy.

The UK doesn’t have military influence in the Asia Pacific. But we have often consulted through our 5 eyes partners to solve problems.

UK sent an escort to FPDA every year before 2010. Why? Because there is a good influence. UK lost it. Now regaining it. Just it.

You mention the lack of deployments, the uk has had a permanent military presence in the region the whole time the Gurkha battalion in Brunei. The same Gurkha battalion that recently exercised in Japan. The same unit that Conducted operations in East Timor with HMS Glasgow. I find it interesting that they seemingly are never counted in all these discussions.

Gurkha had never came to Japan until recently. I think because it costs. Sending a River B2 will be more cheap, and visit many nations. Many.

HMS Glasgow? Exactly, that fact is showing the importance of sending a ship to far east. Again, UK had been sending escorts to far easy every year until 2010. Why? Because it is very effective. Unfortunately, escort cut from 23 to 19 on 2010 prevented it. So RN is restarting it using the two River B2s. I think it is clearly showing why sending two OPVs or an escort to far east is important.

Military coercion is the other strand of diplomacy yes.

I think that was more to do with the Japanese constitution but you would be better placed to comment on that than me.


Yes a warship a ship that contributes to a military task group to conduct military operations.

[donald_of_tokyo]

But OPVs also contributes to show presence. Has an impact. Of course, it is not as much as an escort. Considering the huge huge difference in resource needed to do it, this is very natural. No one is saying an OPV can have the same influence as an escort. No argument.

[SW1]

But OPVs also contributes to show presence. Has an impact. Of course, it is not as much as an escort. Considering the huge huge difference in resource needed to do it, this is very natural. No one is saying an OPV can have the same influence as an escort. No argument.

Either you consider the area a high priority and are willing to contribute military resources to it, or it is not a military priority and you don’t.

[Repulse]

But OPVs also contributes to show presence. Has an impact. Of course, it is not as much as an escort. Considering the huge huge difference in resource needed to do it, this is very natural. No one is saying an OPV can have the same influence as an escort. No argument.

Either you consider the area a high priority and are willing to contribute military resources to it, or it is not a military priority and you don’t.

If you think it’s a priority send a CSG there on exercise regularly. Just another frigate does nothing much, especially if you have some cheap warships that can be present instead.

[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.

What claptrap. A ship based on a NATO AAW frigate will be compromised because it was ordered with a lesser weapons fit but the ability to upgrade it was retained in its design?

It is flawed completely - the T45 is designed as a AAW ship, it allows the radar to be situated high up - not possible with a T31. The T23 (whichever variant) and T26 are ASW ships with a hull design and rafting for quiet operations - not something you can bolt on. You can try and dress it up as you want, you can even invest hundred of millions to make them second rate AAW ships, but doesn’t change the facts.

[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.

What claptrap. A ship based on a NATO AAW frigate will be compromised because it was ordered with a lesser weapons fit but the ability to upgrade it was retained in its design?

It is flawed completely - the T45 is designed as a AAW ship, it allows the radar to be situated high up - not possible with a T31. The T23 (whichever variant) and T26 are ASW ships with a hull design and rafting for quiet operations - not something you can bolt on. You can try and dress it up as you want, you can even invest hundred of millions to make them second rate AAW ships, but doesn’t change the facts.

That's a purist argument, driven by the excellence of T45s optimised wide area AAW design, radar fit, etc.

Doesn't mean to say that a Tier 1-/Tier 2+ AAW can't contribute significantly to CSG/LRG/Escort local area defence by adding missile magazine mass.

A T31+ doesn't need a S1850m radar like IH (QEC and T45 have them). Would be better with NS200 rather than NS110 but then QEC/Albion/T26//T23 'make do' with Artisan

[Repulse]

Who is saying nothing else? We currently have eight OPVs then it will be five OPVs when we used to have 4.

Ok, I give it to we will have 5 OPVs unless SW1 has his way and scrap them also. Just one thing to note when we had 4 OPVs we had 16 MCMs and 4 RN survey ships, who had a secondary patrol role…

[Repulse]

That's a purist argument, driven by the excellence of T45s optimised wide area AAW design, radar fit, etc.

Maybe, but when we map it against priorities - wide area sea skimming, hypersonic and ballistic missile defence for the UK, CSG and allied shipping it’s what’s needed and we do not have enough of them.

I am a firm believer that the RN needs to be about quality not mass when it comes to major warships - even if we stick at 16 escorts for example.

The UK remains relevant by pitching up with world beating assets not just by making up numbers. This is at odds with others who believe mass is more important, but cannot explain for what purpose.

Doesn't mean to say that a Tier 1-/Tier 2+ AAW can't contribute significantly to CSG/LRG/Escort local area defence by adding missile magazine mass.

It could, it just doesn’t have these things and it will cost money and crew to add a contribution that could be better done by other platforms. Why not spend the £2-3bn for the five upgraded T31s on three T26s with additional VLS in place of their mission bays? Atleast that would free up three others for ASW duties.

A T31+ doesn't need a S1850m radar like IH (QEC and T45 have them). Would be better with NS200 rather than NS110 but then QEC/Albion/T26//T23 'make do' with Artisan

This only works if you have CEC like inter connectivity, and there is no sign of this - it is definitely not a justification for a class however IMO.

[tomuk]

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.

What claptrap. A ship based on a NATO AAW frigate will be compromised because it was ordered with a lesser weapons fit but the ability to upgrade it was retained in its design?

It is flawed completely - the T45 is designed as a AAW ship, it allows the radar to be situated high up - not possible with a T31. The T23 (whichever variant) and T26 are ASW ships with a hull design and rafting for quiet operations - not something you can bolt on. You can try and dress it up as you want, you can even invest hundred of millions to make them second rate AAW ships, but doesn’t change the facts.

Are you just trying to make yourself look more foolish?

A ship that is 6500t full load, a length of over 138m and a beam of 19.75m can't be fitted with radar to act as a AAW ship? Am I imagining the Iver Huitfeldts with APAR and SMART-L?

And as to ASW there are plenty of navies using ships without the extensive quietening and non electric drive that T23 and T26 have to carry out ASW. Was it you or somebody else who suggested adding a tail in a shipping container to the River B2s?