Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Repulse]

Published docs say CSG requires 2 T45s and 2 T26s, sure this could be reduced for operations close to home and supplemented with coalition ships, but based on the planning factor of 3 (especially expecting breakdowns / losses etc), this takes up all of the planned T45s and all but 2 T26s which will be needed for FRE/TAPS. So maybe capability for the odd deployment / Training exercise - but it will not support an ARG. The T31 of done properly could allow amphibious ships to deploy closer to shore from the CSG, but never as a separate group.

[Repulse]

@Ron5: I'd say future proofing the T31 isn't high on the list, built more to commercial+ standards of see a 20yr RN lifespan. If we can get it right ultimately 20 T31s/MHPCs could transform the navy. Sounds Fantasy, but if the cost gets in the order of £150mn them that's less than the recent T26 order for 3 ships, and would replace 20 ships (5 T23s and 15 MCMs).

[dmereifield]

Published docs say CSG requires 2 T45s and 2 T26s, sure this could be reduced for operations close to home and supplemented with coalition ships, but based on the planning factor of 3 (especially expecting breakdowns / losses etc), this takes up all of the planned T45s and all but 2 T26s which will be needed for FRE/TAPS. So maybe capability for the odd deployment / Training exercise - but it will not support an ARG. The T31 of done properly could allow amphibious ships to deploy closer to shore from the CSG, but never as a separate group.

Surely the rule of 3 only really applies in peace time operations? If war broke out and we actually needed to send a CBG and/or ARG we'd be throwing everything at it? As a case study, what proportion of the fleet was sent in 82 - does anyone have such info either as % of total hulls or % of FF/DD/SSN etc? I'd guess it's a lot more than 33%?

[Opinion3]

Sounds to me like "current" proofing isn't provided for let alone "future" proofing. I thank Repulse for the CSG numbers because do we not need to protect our own waters in a hot war? The olympics had a T45 tied up for air defence of the capital city.....

[Opinion3]

The Falklands conflict involved a task force which ultimately amounted to 127 ships, consisting of 43 Royal Navy vessels, 22 from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and 62 merchant ships.

[dmereifield]

The Falklands conflict involved a task force which ultimately amounted to 127 ships, consisting of 43 Royal Navy vessels, 22 from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and 62 merchant ships.

Thanks, do you know 43 and 22 out of how many?

[Caribbean]

Thanks, do you know 43 and 22 out of how many?

Try this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Ro ... ls_in_1982

I count 62 Frigates, destroyers, CVs (one in build) and LPDs. Haven't counted the RFAs

[dmereifield]

Thanks, do you know 43 and 22 out of how many?

Try this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Ro ... ls_in_1982

I count 62 Frigates, destroyers, CVs (one in build) and LPDs. Haven't counted the RFAs

Thanks.

Quick tally - ignoring the fact that this tally includes all ships in commission at some point in 1982, not specifically during the Falklands conflict per se, I make it:
23 from 62 FF/DD
2 from 3 CVN
2 from 2 LPD

Expected higher for the FF/DD, but, as I say this is a rather crude assessment which does not including FF/DD (possibly?) deployed elsewhere globally and the fact that 62 is likely to be a bit higher than the number actually in commission during the conflict.

If anyone has anything more accurate please share

[WhitestElephant]

How many of those 62 destroyers and frigates in 1982 were truly "1st tier".

Of such ships in service, I count / would consider:
1 x T81 DDG
9 x T42 DDGs
4 x T22 FFs

= 14

Almost all of them were deployed to the Falklands.

[Gabriele]

As far as i can recall, in 1982 the RN had:

Hermes and Invincible (Illustrious was literally commissioned on the way south, rushed down to relieve her sister)

Fearless (Intrepid was mothballed and had to be hastily re-activated)

1x Type 82 (HMS Bristol)

4x County class (Fife, Glamorgan, Antrim, Norfolk)

6x Type 42 Batch 1 (Sheffield, Birmingham, Newcastle, Coventry, Glasgow, Cardiff) and 3 Batch 2 (Exeter, Southampton and Liverpool which was entering service and rushed through trials)

4x Type 22 (Broadsword, Battleaxe, Brilliant and Brazen which was in built and rushed to be sent south)

8x Type 21 Amazons (Amazon, Antelope, Ambuscade, Arrow, Active, Alacrity, Ardent, Avenger)

26x Leander

3x hastily reactivated Tribal class which had been in reserve (Gurkha, Tartar and Zulu) to cover other tasks while the fleet rushed south

up to 7x Type 12M (Yarmouth, Rothesay, Londonderry, Rhyl, Plymouth, Berwick, Falmouth, Lowestoft, Brighton) of which a couple were trials ships (notably Lowestoft was the prototype towed array ship) while Berwick was hastily re-activated after having been mothballed in 79.

A couple of Whitby, one of which was actually a Harbour training vessel

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks, do you know 43 and 22 out of how many?

Try this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Ro ... ls_in_1982

I count 62 Frigates, destroyers, CVs (one in build) and LPDs. Haven't counted the RFAs

Sorry, I count it 59 [corrected from 55] escorts.

[EDIT]
13 destroyers: 1 Bristol, 9 T42, 3 County
46 [corrected from 42] frigates: 4 T22, 8 T21, 26 Leanders, 8 Rothesay (2 were in stand-by)

So 23 in action 39 [from 42]% surge availability.

[Opinion3]

We are told that because the T45 is more capable we need less of them.

This ignores two crucial points (1) our adversaries are more capable as well, and frankly it only requires one hit to largely knock a warship out of the fight (2) you can't be in two places at the same time.

A T31 might help with (2) but I rather think (1) is more important

[seaspear]

Numbers are important of course but the R.N in that era were vulnerable as many other navies to aircraft launched missiles , a surface warship today should be able to have some capability of defence or be a floating target , the R.N in that cold war era may have faced large numbers of large bombers capable of launching missiles in a far more demanding scenario than off the Falklands , a Daring class may not be able to everywhere of course but in a high threat scenario most would rather be on a Daring than any where else on everything else

[shark bait]

bringing across to this thread

http://navaltoday.com/2017/07/10/sweden ... ult-craft/
CB90 with 12.7mm gun RWS is 2M GBP per unit for 18 units order, now. Interested in the RWS. LCVP Mk.5 was 1M GBP per unit (but it is the price around late 1990s, I guess, which means similar cost now?).

http://navaltoday.com/2017/08/28/dutch- ... -on-board/
CB90 used as a chaser for African operation. Good example of usage.

The Dutch are using their amphibious platform loaded with combat boats in a maritime security role, pretty much exactly the same ting a £250m light frigate will be built to do.

If we are aiming that low on the 'fighty scale', it is preferable to abandon the whole frigate idea, and build a big general purpose utility platform, such as the Bay-Class and fill them full of different vehicles. (CB90 and Wildcat being some easy examples)

£250 million could afford us a big utility platform equipped with 2 wildcat, 2 CB90, and 2 Blackjacks, giving the platform all the maritime security and 'presence' capabilities of a light frigate, plus amphibious logistics and the ability to flex across many roles. A much better way to invest very limited funds.

There are still a few ways the T31 can progress and deliver somethign valuable;

• Build a big flexible utility vessel
• Build a small focused ASW escort
• Merge T31 and MHCP

Building a cheap patrol frigate does not return good value to the RN like those other options would.

[Repulse]

Building a cheap patrol frigate does not return good value to the RN like those other options would.

Agree on this.

[Repulse]

We are told that because the T45 is more capable we need less of them.

This ignores two crucial points (1) our adversaries are more capable as well, and frankly it only requires one hit to largely knock a warship out of the fight (2) you can't be in two places at the same time.

A T31 might help with (2) but I rather thing (1) is more important

Focusing all the RN high end ships on the CSG (plus FRE/TAPS) should mean that a high proportion could be bought to bear in a conflict sooner than in 82, say 9 of the 14 escorts planned. This will not be enough for a separate ARG IMO, nor really two Task Groups unless they sail closely together. It also relies on the T31 being able to cover the other standing commitments and have enough to sail with the CSG for secondary escort / support duties.

[seaspear]

From a respective here with Sea 5000 the requirements are for the frigate of what it has to be capable of , what the crewing levels are ,its ability of self protection ,what it is even to be equipped with etc. Is there a discussion paper on the requirement of the ship ?
It seems the cart has come before the horse with how the unit costs ,if not the actual project of design costs ,
The requirements of what the platform should be capable of and its role should be part of the tender , it seems there are a lot of offerings publicised that are only aimed at meeting unit costs.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The Dutch are using their amphibious platform loaded with combat boats in a maritime security role, pretty much exactly the same ting a £250m light frigate will be built to do.
If we are aiming that low on the 'fighty scale', it is preferable to abandon the whole frigate idea, and build a big general purpose utility platform, such as the Bay-Class and fill them full of different vehicles. (CB90 and Wildcat being some easy examples)

£250 million could afford us a big utility platform equipped with 2 wildcat, 2 CB90, and 2 Blackjacks, giving the platform all the maritime security and 'presence' capabilities of a light frigate, plus amphibious logistics and the ability to flex across many roles. A much better way to invest very limited funds.

Partly agree. The issue is,
1: How big?
2: with what level of damage control?
3: and what will be carried?

1: "Up to" 2 (in most cases 1) Wildcat (anyway not so many Wildcats RN has), 2 CB90, 2 RHIB, and 2 RQ21 Blackjack can be fit within a 4000t hull. In other words, Vard-7 110 hull. If you make it larger, it will just mean "larger target, easy to hit".

2: If you aim at "amphibious logistics", you need large vehicle deck. Larch unified deck filled with vehicle is a "match-box". The hull being larger (as RNZN Canterbury?) is less agile, large radar cross section, easy-to-hit sitting duck. A large match-box as a sitting duck is not good.

(In Bay class, carrying vehicles and cargos are their primary role, and being a match-box is a compromise for it. No problem.)

3: As a ship-original equipment, two CIWS and two 30mm gun with LMM, will be enough? Also do not forget to count the costs for the off-board systems.

There are still a few ways the T31 can progress and deliver somethign valuable;

• Build a big flexible utility vessel
• Build a small focused ASW escort
• Merge T31 and MHCP

Building a cheap patrol frigate does not return good value to the RN like those other options would.

Considering 1, 2 and 3, a Patrol ship, based on Vard-7 110, with a 57mm gun, two 30mm gun & LMM, one 20mm CIWS, "up to" 2 Wildcat, 2 CB90 will not be bad, I guess.

By minimizing the hangar to 1 Wildcat only, and the armament to a 57mm gun, and two 30mm guns only, it can also be a good good MHC candidate, with so-so large mission deck astern.

Build a small focused ASW escort

This is something I am thinking now... How to shape it out...

[donald_of_tokyo]

The requirements of what the platform should be capable of and its role should be part of the tender , it seems there are a lot of offerings publicised that are only aimed at meeting unit costs.

May be because, any idea not meeting the cost requirement is just a fantasy? If there is a capability, you can "rob" some resources out from other projects, like MHC. If there is a reduction in requirement, (say, letting APT-S not covered with escorts), there will be reduction in total escort number, and then maybe +1 or +2 T26 will be the answer. So, both "offerings for cost" and "requirement list" will be needed, I think.

[Jake1992]

In one sence I can understand why people are surgesting the merger of the T31 and MHC program, but surely by doing this we are going to end up with one of two options.

1 - we end up with a MHC vessels that is far over what we need, larger, higher build standards, higher sensor and weapons fit.

2 - a T31 that is no use in the escort tasks, too small, low build standards, less wepons fit. So an over drop in escorts which the T31 is meant to stop.

My other concern of merging the budgets is that we could see a drop in the planned MHC numbers and it be justified by HMG as the T31s make up the number. So what we end up with is a drop to 14 escorts and the planned MHC numbers staying as planned before the merge

[shark bait]

Partly agree. The issue is,
1: How big?

Just replicate the bay class, and possibly add a proper hangar.

That will be able to do everything a Small Patrol frigate can do, plus lots more on top.

• 15,000 tonnes of polar ship is being built in Liverpool for £150m.
• It stands to reason 16,000 tonnes of bay class could be built for under £200m.
• Add in £50m for 2 new build wildcats and £4m for 2 new build CB90.
• The result is an effective multipurpose package that hits the £250m mark.

Really, the question is why build a small patrol frigate, when the same price affords a big utility platform that can do everything the small platform can do, plus lots more?

[ArmChairCivvy]

From a respective here with Sea 5000 the requirements are for the frigate of what it has to be capable of , what the crewing levels are ,its ability of self protection ,what it is even to be equipped with etc. Is there a discussion paper on the requirement of the ship ?
It seems the cart has come before the horse with how the unit costs ,if not the actual project of design costs ,
The requirements of what the platform should be capable of and its role should be part of the tender , it seems there are a lot of offerings publicised that are only aimed at meeting unit costs.

This takes us nicely back to the statements that something built under "x" as a unit cost will be useless:

For a 100 mln (euros) you get " known as BAM (Buque de Acción Marítima), ESPS Relampago is the third of currently four active multipurpose ocean patrol vessels (OPV) in the Spanish Navy. Spain intends to build a total of nine vessels in the class. Measuring 96 meters in length and displacing 2,500 tones, the ships accommodate a crew of 86 and have a SH 60B ‘Seahawk’ helicopter embarked."

That is of course too small to do presence, due to limited endurance?
One of such "Spanish Navy’s offshore patrol vessel[s, ESPS] Relámpago returned home on March 16, concluding a six-month deployment to operation Atalanta, a EU-led counter-piracy mission off the coast of Somalia. The crew sailed over 28,000 nautical miles, and [has] conducted over 50 approaches" [with non-compliant boarding teams]

Now, if we double that, we can surely add 10 meters (and some tonnage, suitably) and the TAS has already been paid for (as we had to
buy three sets anew, to get the T26 ball rolling). The other units (of 5//6 or more) can use the space for launching boats/ MCM remote kit.
- so the hulls would be near-identical => the blocks they consist of will be nearly identical

As for the bolded bit, above, I am sure there is one. Very unfortunate that it hasn't been released to inform our discussion here.
- on the other hand, it means that crayons are out and "users" happily occupied

[seaspear]

I understand that various shipbuilders will be meeting with the government next month to be given a broad outline of requirements ,and for the building of such vessels from 2022 replacing some of the type 23,s , a very ambitious timeline

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yep, DID of today has a very strange wording for who is giving the briefing (well, only one party in the Gvmnt, as for now):
"Britain's leading shipbuilding bosses are scheduled to meet with the ruling Conservative party in September to be briefed on the broad outline for a new class of light frigates for the Royal Navy. Babcock International, BAE Systems, BMT Defence Services and a small design consultancy known as Stellar Systems are expected..."
- so, if it is happening within a month, the document from which the hi-level msgs will be distilled must exist

[donald_of_tokyo]

Really, the question is why build a small patrol frigate, when the same price affords a big utility platform that can do everything the small platform can do, plus lots more?

My concern is it being a "large easy-to-hit sitting duck as well as a match box". Patrol frigate is much less "match box" than a Bay. Again, Bay has a reason to be a match-box, so it is no problem, but why we need to make a vessel for patrol "a match box large sitting duck"? Operation cost also differs.

[edit] Note, I am not complaining anything, but just making my point clear, because you look like missed it.

[edit2] Also, if you build a Patrol frigate with an armament the same as Bay, it will be even half the cost of your Bay. So, it is surely not "the same price".