Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

,they are pumping them out like a Holden HSV

I would buy a Holden HSV; but are they still badged "Vauxhalls" over here - no deal then!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Rejected by the MoD on the grounds that the larger ship would not fit the Devonport frigate complex.

I find that a trifle odd. I would have tough extending the building would be a lot less than the shipbuilding costs saved.

It is still there... now you know what will happen!

[R686]

,they are pumping them out like a Holden HSV

I would buy a Holden HSV; but are they still badged "Vauxhalls" over here - no deal then!

Ha ha, do what they do over here take the badges of one put a bow tie on instead.

[Rambo]

It's interesting when we talk about lessons learned (usually what happened in the Falklands War)
The T21 come in for much criticism but we also lost 2 T42 in the same vein only more or less sticking 2 Phalanx on the rest of the class afterwards and keep them in service rather than ditch them. Although this was probably partly as we had no other AAW destroyers about or even in the pipeline.
Yes T31 could be the T21 of today. Some kit such as Seacat was obsolete on those. But back then thats all we had to go with. CIWS was in its infancy. So was Seawolf as point defence. Also what better way to prove systems than in actual combat.
The lesson should be that better missiles and systems are available now. Its whether we choose to spend the ££ installing the kit on the likes of the T31 & T26.

[Ron5]

It's interesting when we talk about lessons learned (usually what happened in the Falklands War)
The T21 come in for much criticism but we also lost 2 T42 in the same vein only more or less sticking 2 Phalanx on the rest of the class afterwards and keep them in service rather than ditch them. Although this was probably partly as we had no other AAW destroyers about or even in the pipeline.
Yes T31 could be the T21 of today. Some kit such as Seacat was obsolete on those. But back then thats all we had to go with. CIWS was in its infancy. So was Seawolf as point defence. Also what better way to prove systems than in actual combat.
The lesson should be that better missiles and systems are available now. Its whether we choose to spend the ££ installing the kit on the likes of the T31 & T26.

Agree.

My main point, not clearly made, was that the Type 21's had so little room for growth, none of the lessons of the Falklands (or from exercise) could be applied to the ship. Not able to tow a sonar array, not enough stability to mount a Phalanx, not big enough for Sea Wolf etc..

You really should build a bigger ship than you need with ample margins to allow new kit to be fitted as proven needed. Type 26 seems to pass that test. On the other hand, the Type 31 seems to be shaping up to fall short.

[Ron5]

Rejected by the MoD on the grounds that the larger ship would not fit the Devonport frigate complex.

I find that a trifle odd. I would have tough extending the building would be a lot less than the shipbuilding costs saved.

It is still there... now you know what will happen!

While I have your attention. Don't know if you saw the briefing document issued today on the Iraq/Syrian anti-Daesh campaign. The section on costs supports your view that the Treasury pays for ops. Sorry but I've mislaid the link.

But I'm not sure how to square the circle. Today's document states the Treasury coughed up 220 million in 2015-16. The MoD accounts published earlier this year says the Defence Budget paid 216.93 million toward anti-Daesh.

Suspiciously close enough to leave me puzzled. Maybe the Treasury is funding the operations out of their money, but the cost is then added to the MoD spending in order to calculate the 2% of GDP spent on defence.

Given Pinnochio George was running this s-show when the money was spent, my guess is that when his minions told him that the MoD had spent less than 2% (which really happened), he told them to add in the operations budget as well as all the other items that previously funded elsewhere. What the Parliamentary committee called smoke and mirrors.

What it all adds up to is another stealth cut in the Defense budget which further adds to the palpable lie that was once again trotted out yesterday (in the response to criticism of canning RN missiles) that the UK defense budget was rising.

No it's not. Even the smoke and mirrors shows a steady year on year on year decline since the Conservatives took office. Jane's magazine estimates the UK services have lost 30% capability since 2000. I think it's probably higher.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Jane's magazine estimates the UK services have lost 30% capability since 2000. I think it's probably higher.

I have posted somewhere (too many threads) that if you measure the army in BG equivalents, that is there abouts.

With the huge lead times with the RN and RAF it gets to be more difficult.

Will dig up something interesting, though, that predates the Pinocchio... stay on this channel.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Here is the change in (standardised, not cooking-the-books terms) UK defence expenditures, from 2009 to 2016, in %:

United Kingdom -1.40 1.38 -1.67 -8.23 6.80 -1.61 -2.52 7.44

Other than the change of policy (the latest observation), where is the anomaly? And this one is not in relation to GDP which fluctuates more than the defence budget.

This is where I think the "wool over our eyes" policy in these matters manifests itself. The Only mention what you. RON. raised of , as being RECTIFIED, ie. the fact that most of the Gulf"2" war was paid out of MoD normal budget, not from the Treasury Central Reserve, is when this certain Mr. Gray (by now fired or by some other method "inactive" in these matters) was a new boy and spilled the beans in the Defence Committee minutes (of oral, not written , evidence): the settlement of that difference between the Treasury and the MoD was imminent:
- never made public
- could? coincide with that blib (in bold) in the time series... cant be arsed to check as I am just an interested observer (not a paid analyst, so I love picking holes in their work; would I hire many of them - dont ask!)

[S M H]

My main point, not clearly made, was that the Type 21's had so little room for growth, none of the lessons of the Falklands (or from exercise) could be applied to the ship. Not able to tow a sonar array, not enough stability to mount a Phalanx, not big enough for Sea Wolf etc.. You really should build a bigger ship than you need with ample margins to allow new kit to be fitted as proven needed. Type 26 seems to pass that test. On the other hand, the Type 31 seems to be shaping up to fall short.

The type 21 was a commercial design to a tight budget the original plan was for them to be fitted with a light version of sea wolf however it was no mature enough to fit at build and was stopped in development. Treasury driven cuts along with maintaining hull numbers caused the navy to except sub standard warships, The type 23s were suppose to be the cheap frigate to the type 22s. I can remember seeing the original design model in a film of the test tank run at Teddington. This was used in comparison to the sea handling capabilities of the rescue target towing launches in respect of a following sea. (the R.A.F./R.N. vessels were restricted in speed in some following sea states.) The ship was smaller than the redesigned type 23. What we should be hoping is that Bath gets is requirements right and we end up with a Type 31 on a modern equivalent of the G.P. type23. As the type 26 is in effect a super frigate size wise. If the type 31 were built to the life of the type 23 originally we would get a effective frigate The important factor is that the ship must a warship. If fitted for weapons but not installed at construction they should be equipped with the silos or ramps and pre wired so they can be up armed easily. we must not repeat the type 45 large empty space used as a gym.

[marktigger]

interting how does a typhoon get on against an F22?

the type 21 & type 42 losses have elements on trying to save as much money as possible to get more Hulls.......sound familiar?

I

[cky7]

I think you are saying too much. For example, "Hawk vs Typhoon" is rather "River OPV vs T26" than "T31 vs T26". For me, much better comparison is "Typhoon vs F22". RAF selected Typhoon, which is equivalent to "light frigate" for me. Japanese air force selected F15 (destroyer) not F16 ("light frigate") on 1980s. But, many of European air force preferred F16 ("light frigate" for me), which is not that bad.

I get the general point you were trying to make but the typhoon is no light frigate in comparison! The raptor has the edge overall but WVR typhoon is probably better and even BVR it wouldn't be anywhere near as one sided as the raptor fanboys would have you believe. This is not meant as a knock against the raptor btw which is an incredible aircraft.

The more I think about the issue the more I think the problem is Going to be really hard to get a satisfactory outcome to unless we increase funding (the same goes throughout the forces on loads of other projects). I know it's probably realism but people seem to have accepted things will never change with this governments disgusting treatment of the armed forces and their funding. I wish the government could be exposed for what they're doing with their smoke and mirrors accounting and increasing budget bullshit. If the type 31ends up not being credible I worry the RN will hit a tipping point from which its gonna be very hard to return from. There are similar problems throughout the forces in the near future too.

Does anyone think it's gonna be doable to get 8 full fat type 26 and 5 or more credible and ASW focused type 31? I'd be happy if the type 31 has everything the recently proposed French future frigate has but what we've seen so far just gives the impression that we won't get anything that capable. Perhaps I've let pessimism get the better of me after all cgi means nothing but surely a stretched river is gonna be hard to get that level of capability from?

As others have said the whole light frigate thing is worrying. Changes in crew habitability expectations and safety standards means even something fairly basic ends up bigger than a type 21 and ideally I'd be wanting something as big as possible, the small price increase is easily justified by the greater options a bigger platform offers.

[donald_of_tokyo]

YARD was commissioned by the MoD to review the Type 23 design before it was built and one of their recommendations was to build them larger in order to save money. That would be done primarily in two ways: cheaper but heavier steel could be used and the roomier hull would enable easier (and therefore cheaper) fit out. ...I find that a trifle odd. I would have tough extending the building would be a lot less than the shipbuilding costs saved.

No objection. Your comment here is nothing to do with my light frigate "supporting" comments. Although,

Crew size was not affected.

I doubt here. Damage control surely require more crews for larger hull (with the same level of automation). But, yes, may be only a little increase, ~10 or so.
Your comment here reminds me, there is still miss communication between us... Sorry for it.

RAF selected Typhoon, which is equivalent to "light frigate" for me

I think you will struggle to justify that. Typhoon was undoubtedly the most capable aircraft European industry could produce at the time.

Sorry, you (and also cky7-san) completely misunderstand my point. I said every thing is "relative". F22 vs F15, F22 vs Typhoon, F15 vs F16. Therefore, I did NOT compare Typhoon vs F16/F15. Please note, in Japan, with our large air area, F16 is regarded as "bad" for air defense. We need F15's long range. (although counter arguments exists. Good, worth discussing, as we do here for the light frigates).But in many case, F16 is really good.

Modern light frigates are powerful assets.

Can you support that? I have seen no evidence that suggests they are.

Of course I can not. But you also not have evidence against it. T21 is one of "ligth frigates". Typical bad one. Similarly, Bristol was a large DD, typical bad one (no heli, only 1 twin SeaDarts ...).

We all know how well it ended last time the RN dabbled into the second tier.

Yes. And the lessons are learned from it. For me, lessons are NOT for "NO light frigate". It is for "PROPER light frigate".

In spite of that I do believe a clean sheet smaller combatant could still be credible. Modern options like CAMM, Artisan and compact CAPTAS allow more capability to be packed into a smaller package thanks to their low intrusive nature. Combine that with some lean crewing and perhaps its possible to get credibility from a smaller platform.

Totally agree, but

That certainly isn't going to happen by omitting Merlin, Mission bay, Sonar, CIWS ect....

Many objection here I have. BUT, the point is, I am talking about this part.

For example, my question is, what if T21 was designed with
1: SeaWolf and 20mm CIWS FFBNW (space reserved), but temporary SeaCat and 40mm cannons.
2: TASS FFBNW, but temporary vacant.
3: of course with low CoG (no need for super fast speed, which actually never happend because of heavy ballast. Stupid idea...)
I agree this may not stop "Ardent" tragedy. But, even if the large Bristol was there in place of HMS Ardent, same thing would have been be happened, sunk. So, lessons learned here has little to do with light frigate discussion. It was SeaCat and no CIWS, as well as "cheap" cabling.

But with 3 modifications, or at least item-1 and 3, T21 would have been remained as a good frigate in RN, as it provides the future growth margine it needed.

[marktigger]

OK now point out the things that were actually good about the type 21 Donald!

[donald_of_tokyo]

OK now point out the things that were actually good about the type 21 Donald!

Nothing special, it was as useful as Leanders/Primouths = armed with obsolete AAW weapons and equipped with wrong cables (= not much useful). Similarly, I have nothing to support HMS Bristol either, the largest and brand-new DD RN had at that time.

But, T21 was there fighting the war along with Leanders/Primouths, and Bristol/Counties/Shefields, contributing to the TF. They (not only T21) did there best, paying penalties (T42 as well, and also many other had hit) of the RN looking less about AAW and damage control.

Thus, I understand it was obsolete SeaCat, wrong cable, lack of CIWS, and on top of if, lack of AEW, which were the problem. All of these are associated not only with T21, but also T12/T42/T82 and so on.

Why we (including me) think T21 in particular is "not good" is on her life after Falklands war. Lack of growth margin, very high CoG, all made them impossible to incorporate the lessons learned, making them only "as useful as Primouths", which were build 20 years ahead of T21.

I admit I am not well informed enough, but this is my assessment reading some books, documents, and many comments here.

[Opinion3]

I'm all for rethinking designs and trying things in an innovative way but my feelings are that the T26 and now the T31 are having a slow and painful birth.

Having messed around with the T45 we were advised that the T26 would be easier. I can't see the evidence of that. I understand the 80:20 flip to 20:80 but if that is the case why not a prompt sign off and build. Instead fill in orders were placed for smaller vessels.

In nearly all areas the armed forces are using larger more capable planes, vehicles and ships....... so why is the T31 the exception? I agree entirely that we need to start by defining our needs. Capabilities, numbers and within a budget are the most obvious start points. Personally I believe Parliament is failing in it's duties to fully scruntinise the Government's and Armed Forces ability to meet those needs. I'd like to see the ability of a select committee to compel the Prime Minister and other Ministers to under going twice yearly oversight reviews to ensure "things are covered". It could be a law, and committee rules might say no political point scoring.

So do we have the vessels to protect Britain's 7,723 miles of coastline, 298,718m2 of EEZ, Shipping trade of 503.2 million tonnages and all the associated trading routes, shipping lanes etc. We always appear to be struggling to ensure that we have enough protection in place for the 13,000 square meters for the QEC (square meters not miles!)

We appear to consider the protection for the fleet but we need frigates to destroy submarines, ships and quite possibly planes sent to attack our way of life on the British Isles and in Overseas Territories. I don't see this being considered. We can take the fight to the enemy but are left bare in the process. Note a T45 was used to protect London during the olympics.

I believe we need more vessels and the T31s are going to be too small. Furthermore having a separate design increases risk and production costs, tooling, maintenance are all likely to be more expensive on a marginal or like for like basis as a result. The original plan of a bare T26 is probably still the best solution.

[shark bait]

Does anyone think it's gonna be doable to get 8 full fat type 26 and 5 or more credible and ASW focused type 31? I'd be happy if the type 31 has everything the recently proposed French future frigate has but what we've seen so far just gives the impression that we won't get anything that capable.

It's possible, but it seems like it will be difficult. As you say the French seem to be doing all the right things, on paper at least they have all the fundamentals for a credible light frigate.

The UK could transfer the gun, radar, CAMM, countermeasures, and the harpoon replacement from the T31, add a compact CAPTAS all wrapped up in a modern roomy hull and we have the basis of a platform with credible capabilities against all domains, that can be incrementally upgrades over the decades.

[marktigger]

Nothing special, it was as useful as Leanders/Primouths = armed with obsolete AAW weapons and equipped with wrong cables (= not much useful). Similarly, I have nothing to support HMS Bristol either, the largest and brand-new DD RN had at that time.

But, T21 was there fighting the war along with Leanders/Primouths, and Bristol/Counties/Shefields, contributing to the TF. They (not only T21) did there best, paying penalties (T42 as well, and also many other had hit) of the RN looking less about AAW and damage control.

Thus, I understand it was obsolete SeaCat, wrong cable, lack of CIWS, and on top of if, lack of AEW, which were the problem. All of these are associated not only with T21, but also T12/T42/T82 and so on.

Why we (including me) think T21 in particular is "not good" is on her life after Falklands war. Lack of growth margin, very high CoG, all made them impossible to incorporate the lessons learned, making them only "as useful as Primouths", which were build 20 years ahead of T21.

I admit I am not well informed enough, but this is my assessment reading some books, documents, and many comments here.

can you point to any navy outside the USN that had ciws in 82?
What other frigates provide AEW?

given the time period of 82 seawolf was only new I think the navy had 3 ships equipped with it. Sea Dart not much better. Bristol was a one off "carrier escort" destroyer designed specifically to work with the CVA 01 (which is the best evidence for how unrealistic some of the posters here are that the QE are the answer to everything). The Fleet had been starved of funds for nearly a decade facing year on year cuts. the Type 21's and 42's introduces CoGAG better accommodation and computer systems. And drags the navy out of the 1950's designed Type 12 frigates (Leanders were only a modification of this design).

the cables are mentioned as the fire hazard it wasn't just them it also included the crews bedding and furniture, wall and floor coverings, crew uniforms. There was a lack of fire fighting equipment and a single fire main.

The Navy knew the flaws so why was it accepted? simple they needed the ships and this cut price vessel was all that was on offer from HMG bit like the Type 31 (how apt 10 on from the Type 21).

BTW Bristol deployed very late in the conflict and post war was one of the first ships fitted with Phalanx

[marktigger]

The UK could transfer the gun, radar, CAMM, countermeasures, and the harpoon replacement from the T31, add a compact CAPTAS all wrapped up in a modern roomy hull and we have the basis of a platform with credible capabilities against all domains, that can be incrementally upgrades over the decades.

The plan as far as I understand is to transfare all the major systems from Type23 into type 26. The Harpoon equipment could be to if there is space but without missiles what's the point? And will the chosen replacement to harpoon be compatable with the launcher? or will another VLS system need to be fitted?
With the Gun the decision is probably to comply with a STANAG but the 5inch is also more widely used across the world. It also means development costs can be spread as international joint programs instead of the UK being sole user (also enhances export potential).
I totally agree a modern roomy hull with room to future proof the vessel would be the best solution and they tell us steel is cheap! which is where missions bays and overflow accommodation have a useful part to play. but also to some extent going for fitted for but not with does to (however you have to have trust in HMG, Treasury and Industry to go down that route)
But sticking a TASS on it isn't cost effective unless you go the whole hog and build as an ASW platform dampened equipment, non cavitation propellers, flow noise eradication which is do able but adds cost.

[ArmChairCivvy]

obsolete SeaCat, wrong cable, lack of CIWS, and on top of if, lack of AEW

On that account we are doing well now?

given the time period of 82 seawolf was only new I think the navy had 3 ships equipped with it

"If only" thinking re: Seawolf comes up often. It was no Wunderwaffe, in fact the fire control radar performed very poorly, This was fixed post-conflict by borrowing the one from Rapier (well, not as one piece, but key design aspects/ components).

this cut price vessel was all that was on offer from HMG bit like the Type 31 (how apt 10 on from the Type 21).

Bingo! That was a good one

The plan as far as I understand is to transfare all the major systems from Type23 into type 26

That might change (to T31s). The first three T26s will get new kit. So: 8 plus 5 makes 13 minus 3 makes 10... one (at least) T23 not fully upgraded, makes 9 now
- so, take away(?) the other 5 T26s from that and we will get between 4 and 9 T31s
- why do I think it is a range (4-9)?
- because some of the "electorally promised" T26s might actually come in AAW fit-out, in a very long and drawn-out drum beat for builds (so as to overlap with the "Ds" being withdrawn from service)

Well, well, the November statement and and the unveiling of the NSS are only "days" away now.

[shark bait]

@marktigger,

That was the plan for the T26, but in reality what is being carried across? As far as I can tell it's only Artisan and Sonar that's being transferred. The T26 has Different CAMM, Different Gun, Different CIWS, Different Engines, Different ASM, and more. Most of it is brand new, not a bad thing.

T26 doesn't look to have room for deck launchers, so will need a vertically launched missile, T23 & T45 only have deck launchers so will need a solution for that. We either need a single missile that satisfies both of those, or two different systems, the former is more desirable. T31 should pick up which ever method is cheapest, likely the deck launched option.

TASS is less effective without acoustic optimizations, and it's achievable on the T31 if we accept a slower effective speed. The polar ship is acoustically optimized and it's not made the platform prohibitively expensive, but it likely will have to go slower than the T26 when towing. Is that acceptable for the T31? I believe that's a reasonable compromise.

Without that its leaving a big hole in the ships defense. There's no point locking the front door if the back door is left wide open. Sending combatant out today without credible ability in the sub surface doman would be the equivalent of sending the fleet south without adequate air defenses.

A note on the Polar Ship, it has an acoustically isolated hull with resilient mounted machinery, and specialist non-cavitating propeller, its designed to be almost silent at around 12 knots. Not bad for £200m

[GibMariner]

Similarly, I have nothing to support HMS Bristol either, the largest and brand-new DD RN had at that time.

HMS Bristol wasn't a "brand-new DD" at that time, she was the first Royal Navy vessel to take Sea Dart to sea, entering service in 1973, two years before Sheffield.

Bristol was more of a test bed for the new systems coming into service in the 1970s than an operational frontline combatant for most of her early career. As marktigger has said, Bristol led the 'Bristol Group' of reinforcements that left the UK around May 10th, with 2 Type 21s, 3 Leanders and HMS Cardiff having sailed from Gibraltar and rendezvoused with the Group en route, as well as 2 tankers. They only reached the Falklands in late May, around the same time HMS Coventry was sunk IIRC, with Bristol taking Coventry's place. Bristol was also the flagship after HMS Hermes returned home until HMS Illustrious arrived to relieve her.

In the same vein of late arrivals, HMS Exeter was sent south from the Caribbean to replace HMS Sheffield. What is often forgotten in the criticism of the Sea Dart system in the Falklands War is that the problems weren't all due to the missile itself, but the fact that Bristol and the Batch I Type 42s were all fitted with the obsolete 1950s-era Type 965 radar (which proved unable to cope with the environment the Task Force faced in the South Atlantic) as the Type 1022 that was intended for the destroyers*, wasn't available in time and was first installed on the Batch II HMS Exeter and HMS Invincible.

HMS Exeter managed to shoot down 3 Argentine aircraft with Sea Dart despite being a relatively late entry to the war. After the war, Bristol and other Type 42s were fitted with Type 1022 and CIWS.

*The Type 82 destroyers were originally intended to be fitted with the then-planned Anglo-Dutch Type 988 3D 'Broomstick' radar which would have been fitted to the CVA-01.

[donald_of_tokyo]

can you point to any navy outside the USN that had ciws in 82?
What other frigates provide AEW? .....
the Type 21's and 42's introduces CoGAG better accommodation and computer systems. And drags the navy out of the 1950's designed Type 12 frigates (Leanders were only a modification of this design).
the cables are mentioned as the fire hazard it wasn't just them it also included the crews bedding and furniture, wall and floor coverings, crew uniforms. There was a lack of fire fighting equipment and a single fire main.

So the problem was NOT on T21, but on RN as a whole. So, we cannot blame ONLY T21 for it. This is my point, and I think (hope?) you agree to it.

The Navy knew the flaws so why was it accepted? simple they needed the ships and this cut price vessel was all that was on offer from HMG bit like the Type 31 (how apt 10 on from the Type 21).

Yes. This means "lessens learned" is important. For T21, the COGOG and high speed was totally not needed. Better be used those resources to provide future growth margin. Clear lessons learned.

BTW Bristol deployed very late in the conflict and post war was one of the first ships fitted with Phalanx

Is this true? I couldn't find its info...

[donald_of_tokyo]

On hull quietness. USN is using Prairie-Masker. How much is this effective?

A normal hull with Prairie-Masker will not be as quiet as T23/T26. But, if it works "so so well", why not make it an option for T31 while leaving it with simple (=cheap) CODAD?

The merit is this system can be "added". We can omit it from the export version (many export customers do not take ASW so seriously). We can even adopt it only to 2 of the 5 T31s, make them specialized on ASW, while leave the other 3 on GP duties. Since it can be added later, RN can do it to the 3 left, if the SSK threat become more severe in future. If future were more peaceful, we can let it FFBNW in safe.

[marktigger]

BTW Bristol deployed very late in the conflict and post war was one of the first ships fitted with Phalanx

Is this true? I couldn't find its info...

H

Just checking my references and it was for but not with by 1986 same reference still lists the 42's as only having the twin 30mm oerlikons

[donald_of_tokyo]

HMS Bristol wasn't a "brand-new DD" at that time, she was the first Royal Navy vessel to take Sea Dart to sea, entering service in 1973, two years before Sheffield.

Bristol was 9 years old when she deployed for the war. Now, HMS Daring is 7 years old. I said Bristol as "brand new" in the same stance to say Daring is still brand new. Sorry, I should have made it clear...

And yes, the radar issues will be a big problem for T42. Does anybody know why did RN not adopted LW08, and used its modified version Type 1022?