Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Ron5]

Three really stupid answers. Well done chaps.

Trash talking again, I see.

Oh come on, don't tell me you gave a great answer.

[Caribbean]

Actually, no, not great - just accurate

[ArmChairCivvy]

To give an idea about how much we are trailing behind the 2010 intentions (when the MHPC prgrm was launched):
The Sandown and Hunt-class mine countermeasures vessels will remain in service and start the transition to a future capability from 2018 as part of the Mine countermeasures, Hydrographic, Patrol Craft (MHPC) project

A ship that would not be a single mission, but could - at a pinch - supplement escort numbers brought the involvement of a specialist consultancy [Frazer-Nash] " working closely with defence and industry stakeholders to develop a set of User and System Requirements for the new capability".
- that was the project's Concept Phase ; just where are we now, with PQQs?

Not taking that money off the £ 1.4bn total (that I seem to remember), now we can start counting:
-BAE Systems Naval Ships was awarded a £348 million contract (for 3), then
-in December 2016 a £287m manufacturing contract for two further River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels
-TD has kept us abreast of what the joint Anglo-French unmanned MCM has delivered, but not not even he has been able to tally up the cost
- the 5 OPVs, with 2,000 tonnes, speed of around 24 knots and reach of 5,500 nautical miles without resupply, may be fine ships. But multi-mission they ain't .

Game on: a fresh £1.25 bn thrown in should get us bigger ships. Though by now closer to escorts (for making up numbers), but also the basis (in batch 2, actually utilising the much touted flexibility) delivering what MHPC (minus P) set out to do
- how much have we "got left" towards that? Anyone?
- units after the first 5 may come out cheaper, but then again there will be specialist kit to be paid for, too

[shark bait]

£630 million pissed away on some patrol vessels no one wanted.

Imagine where we would be if the MOD could have planned ahead and lumped that together with the T31 budget. Maybe they wouldn't be in such a dire situation.

Could have built 4 proper frigates, instead lets built 10 patrol vessels!

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved this across as it's not MHPC specific.

Now sell the rivers

Agreed, as soon as possible.

and T31

Cant agree with that, why aim to sell something when we don't even know what they will look like yet?

then build 20 multi mission ships

I think that's too many, the numbers will just be cut.

I hear talk about the need to 'rebalance' the RN's fleet, perhaps its correct, but at the moment the plan is swinging way to far to the low end.

I agree but building 20 sloops won't rebalance that.

6 45s
8 26s
5 31s
5 B2 Rivers
10 multi mission Sloops

This is probably very close to current planning and won't be the end of the world as long as the individual vessels are correctly configured.

I would head in a slightly different direction, something along the lines of,

6x T45
6x T26
6x T31 ASW (FTI and PPA equivalent, TAPS capable)
15x MHPC ( 4 variants, Venari based, scalable between 80m to 120m)

• - 3x Combat MCMV (High Threat)
  - 3x MCMV (Medium Threat)
  - 4x MCMV (Low Threat)
  - 5x Basic EEZ Patrol

The increased specification T31's would be funded by dropping two T26's and the MHPC programme would be fast tracked with the funding secured by the sale of the RB2's.

One point that isn't often discussed here is the UK's export strategy.

The above fleet would give UK PLC a well balanced export portfolio, all in service with the Royal Navy.

Tier1 Frigate ASW £750m (T26)
Tier2 Frigate ASW £500m
90m to 120m MCMV's £150m to £250m
Basic EEZ OPV £80m

[donald_of_tokyo]

Before going into "bright" future discussion, the sea-going days of Type-23 is concerning.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 10/177797/

Sea going days are, 103.7 days per year (or 28.5% of 365 days, or 8.64 days per month) among the 13 Type-23, averaged over 2010 to 2018 (unto October). Sir Humphrey explain the meaning of the number itself, so it could be OK.
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... -days.html

But the concern is the following plot.

スクリーンショット 2018-10-18 23.38.40.png

The yearly average of sea going days shows clear drop in 2015. Monthly average sea going days on 2010-2014 is 10.5 days per hull, but it decreases to 6.75 days in 2015-2018/Oct. It is 36% reduction in number.

In other words, if the average sea going days per hull in 2010-2014 is kept, we need only 8.3 hulls in 2015-2018.

More sensationally, current RN tasks can be covered with only 8.3 Type-23. It matches our impression that "deployed" escort number has decreased significantly these days. No APT-N and no "2 escorts" in Persian gulf.

Question-1: Do we really need Type-31?


If this is because of man-power crisis, it means the manning level is 64% of that compared to 2010-2014 (Yes, currently typically 2 (or 3) hulls are in modernization, but it doesn't matter. Reduction in sea going days says anyway the crew is not enough).

If we convert it into total crew number, 13 hull needed "13x180 = 2340 crew", but now it is only "180x8.3 = 1494 crew".

Interestingly if we need 150 crews (*1) per hull on 8 T26s, only 297 remains. In other words, only 3 T31e can be manned.

Question-2: Do we really need 5 T31? Only 3 is enough? Why are RN building a ship which they cannot man?


By the way, the remaining 297 crew is well fit for "2 more T26."

Proposal: If 1.25B GBP remains, 2 more T26 shall be there (as I've already proposed 2 weeks before).


On the other hand, if 5 T31e must come (as strong politics), at least 1 T26 must be cut, because RN cannot man it. (What a logical and dangerous proposal ....)



*1: As I think 180 crew for T23 included flight-team, 150 crew for T26 here I assume is the same.

[RetroSicotte]

In other words, if the average sea going days per hull in 2010-2014 is kept, we need only 8.3 hulls in 2015-2018.

More sensationally, current RN tasks can be covered with only 8.3 Type-23. It matches our impression that "deployed" escort number has decreased significantly these days. No APT-N and no "2 escorts" in Persian gulf.

Incorrect way of thinking. Reduction in this chart is due to missing capability and crew due to cuts, not due to a reduction in requirements in the world being less. Note how many times the RN's taskforces have been far smaller than they ought to be, or should realistically be to bring the capability required.

This is an indicator of falling heights, and how that number needs to be increased, and should not be twisted into some skewed way to justify further gutting of the fleet. Because I can guarantee you that that's what the Government will try to use it for.

[donald_of_tokyo]

You are right. RN shall fight for "more money" and "more man power".

But, the man-power "lost" from T23 = 840 amounts to "PoW crew". HMS Illustrious (650) and Ocean (285) were providing the other 800 crew for QNLZ (some 100 are lost elsewhere). QECV manpower "dream" of 650 ship core crew has gone, and they are talking about ~800 now.

Some crews are cut. But, the majority of them went into the 2 QE-CVs. So, I'm afraid defending is not that easy.

If you like, we can wait until we see the result, MDP. But, I think military MUST prepare for reality. Cutting T31 is a reasonable solution, when it comes to defending the RN capability. And if so, it is NOW = before the MDP concludes, we shall push it. Claiming for more is one thing, NOT PREPARING FOR REALISTIC FUTURE is something military must not do. All such decision in the past has damaged the RN so much. See River B2, forced to come in by lacking the future vision "what if T26 could not start by 2013-14".

We are talking about, Khareef-based T31e-batch0 (may be 3 of them) must have been ordered, not 5 River B2. If RN was prepared for that 1-2 years before, it must have happened. I totally agree to such idea.

Because past cannot be changed, I am proposing this for (near) future.

Thanks.

[Lord Jim]

Being a bit of a scratched record but for the benefit of the RN and meeting the NSS, scrapping the T-31e, building planning for initially one more T-26 and accelerating the MHPC as a result of the MDP would be far better than current plans.

[SW1]

A couple of posts from Bernard Gray on resources and tasks just for devils advocate purposes

[dmereifield]

Before going into "bright" future discussion, the sea-going days of Type-23 is concerning.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 10/177797/

Sea going days are, 103.7 days per year (or 28.5% of 365 days, or 8.64 days per month) among the 13 Type-23, averaged over 2010 to 2018 (unto October). Sir Humphrey explain the meaning of the number itself, so it could be OK.
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... -days.html

But the concern is the following plot.

スクリーンショット 2018-10-18 23.38.40.png

The yearly average of sea going days shows clear drop in 2015. Monthly average sea going days on 2010-2014 is 10.5 days per hull, but it decreases to 6.75 days in 2015-2018/Oct. It is 36% reduction in number.

In other words, if the average sea going days per hull in 2010-2014 is kept, we need only 8.3 hulls in 2015-2018.

More sensationally, current RN tasks can be covered with only 8.3 Type-23. It matches our impression that "deployed" escort number has decreased significantly these days. No APT-N and no "2 escorts" in Persian gulf.

Question-1: Do we really need Type-31?


If this is because of man-power crisis, it means the manning level is 64% of that compared to 2010-2014 (Yes, currently typically 2 (or 3) hulls are in modernization, but it doesn't matter. Reduction in sea going days says anyway the crew is not enough).

If we convert it into total crew number, 13 hull needed "13x180 = 2340 crew", but now it is only "180x8.3 = 1494 crew".

Interestingly if we need 150 crews (*1) per hull on 8 T26s, only 297 remains. In other words, only 3 T31e can be manned.

Question-2: Do we really need 5 T31? Only 3 is enough? Why are RN building a ship which they cannot man?


By the way, the remaining 297 crew is well fit for "2 more T26."

Proposal: If 1.25B GBP remains, 2 more T26 shall be there (as I've already proposed 2 weeks before).


On the other hand, if 5 T31e must come (as strong politics), at least 1 T26 must be cut, because RN cannot man it. (What a logical and dangerous proposal ....)



*1: As I think 180 crew for T23 included flight-team, 150 crew for T26 here I assume is the same.

You'd also lose 190 crew to bring the 6th T45 back into the fleet, so without an uplift in headcount you'd be able to crew probably just 1 T31...

[donald_of_tokyo]

In other words, if the average sea going days per hull in 2010-2014 is kept, we need only 8.3 hulls in 2015-2018.

More sensationally, current RN tasks can be covered with only 8.3 Type-23. It matches our impression that "deployed" escort number has decreased significantly these days. No APT-N and no "2 escorts" in Persian gulf.

Incorrect way of thinking. Reduction in this chart is due to missing capability and crew due to cuts, not due to a reduction in requirements in the world being less. Note how many times the RN's taskforces have been far smaller than they ought to be, or should realistically be to bring the capability required.

This is an indicator of falling heights, and how that number needs to be increased, and should not be twisted into some skewed way to justify further gutting of the fleet. Because I can guarantee you that that's what the Government will try to use it for.

1: I made this plot to show that, even though 13 Type-23 were retained in SDSR2015, its activity level has dramatically reduced by 36% (which I think is related to man-power). Another hidden cut. It also means, even if "5 T31 and 8 T23/26" were to be retained in MDP, it doesn't mean there is no further cut. This is big risk.

2: So the priority in defense must be on man-power increase (*1), and operation cost increase. This "might" mean, less procurement cost. Also, the top-top-top issue of MDP is to totally eliminate "efficiency saving". (although I doubt if it may happen)


Claiming for "keep the number of frigate" is bad. RN shall claim for "keep the number of ACTIVE frigates, fully manned, fully supported, and fully utilized".


I shall admit, I am not much optimistic here, though.

------
*1 Problem with man-power increase is, even it was committed to provide 500 more sailers and more in SDSR2015, it failed in real world. 2018 man power has a little decreased than 2017. This does not necessarily mean the promotion was bad. Just mean, even with the activity, man-power did not raised (or the promotion activity was actually bad? I have no info here.).

[abc123]

But who want's to be a sailor in an ever shrinking navy? Where you have to fear that your ship will be axed every year or two because of "Defence Modernisation"?

Also, who would like 10 months long deployments?

[NickC]

Canada has awarded contract to General Dynamics Canada/Ultra Electronics Maritime Systems Canada/Nautel for the Underwater Warfare Suite Upgrade (UWSU) of its Halifax class frigates.

If understanding correctly the interesting take on this new kit is that's it based on R&D at the Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) Atlantic Research Laboratory, Halifax, Nova Scotia dating back '90s, its using a single tail with a Horizontal Projector (Sound) Array incorporated into tail as an alternative to the normal twin tails.

The Horizontal Projector (Sound) Array incorporated in the tail uses a Modular Projector System (MPS) which exploits acoustic interaction between closely spaced underwater sound projectors to produce a compact low frequency broadband source assembled from a number of small sound projectors which are mounted in close proximity, exploiting the acoustic interactions amongst the projectors, the transducer designer can choose the resonance frequency, bandwidth, and output power of the system within wide limits for an integrated active-passive sonar system provides a small-footprint, low-mass system

Sound energy steered only in the direction of interest, and with the transmitter and receiver combined in-line in a single towed array, so no requirement for a second independent tow for VDS, only needing single reelable array to be installed on the Halifax class with minimal modification. The single tail, in-line transmitter also significantly increases the ship’s operational envelope because of the transmitter’s ability to operate at full power in shallow waters and payoff is it saves space, weight, and cost for the ship.

Thinking of use on Type 31e

[donald_of_tokyo]

Good info/photos from Shark-bait-san's twitter.

I think the reason RN and USN do not have this large hangar is
- damage control. See FFG7 and A Burk Fl-2&3, having separate hangar for 2 helos. A read somewhere that it is because of damage control.
- Merlin is expensive and precious that there is no plan to carry 2 on an escort in RN ?
- For multiple Melin operation, RN has Invincible/Ocean or QNLZ/PoW and carrying 9 Merlin in a single large ship is much more efficient than carrying 2 each on 5 escorts? (But, JMSDF has "2 helo" hangar on our DDs, even we have Huga and Izumo class).
Just guess....

[donald_of_tokyo]

Leander vs Khareef. (analysis)

スクリーンショット 2018-10-19 23.31.34.png

Clearly, reusing many of the design. Even the width of the hangar is the same (even though the height differs). Not only bow section, but all though to the SSM location, it is completely "a copy and paste".

スクリーンショット 2018-10-19 23.31.44.png

The power train is the thing I like in Leander. Using the largest available military diesel, it uses only 1 diesel per shaft, and still capable of providing 25+ knots. It it become larger, 4 diesel CODAD orientation is needed (as FTI and IH/Arrowhead 140 classes).

Leander is smaller than FTI. This fact makes this happen.

I think this fact important.

Proposal (personal opinion)
If T31e program is going, I love Leander as a candidate. As Leander is ~10% smaller than FTI, I think it shall be "one point less than" FTI. For example, it can be a "single task" light frigate.
- GP version: as T31e RFI + hull-sonar and torpedo-defense (with 57/76mm gun, 2x 30mm gun, 12 CAMM, 1x CIWS)
- ASW version: with CAPTAS4CI added. Omit the mission bay, and replace the 57/76 mm gun with 30mm, while increase CAMM twice (say 12 --> 24). With better AAW, I shall even omit CIWS. (2x 30mm gun, 24 CAMM only).

GP version is only GP (such as T21), and ASW version is only ASW (such as T22). This is important also to make the crew size small, to enable more hulls to be deployed more actively.

[Ron5]

I think the reason RN and USN do not have this large hangar

LCS hangar:

[Ron5]

Not only bow section, but all though to the SSM location, it is completely "a copy and paste".

Not quite but pretty close. A profile view shows some of the changes.

As I've said before, Leander isn't really a Kareef stretch. It's a Bae Corvette stretch.

[Ron5]

I'm aware of two reasons the RN have against full width hangars.

Firstly, the airflow over the flight deck is more turbulent. Cutting the "corners" with the flight deck helps as is done on the Type 26.

Secondly, the RN specifies unobstructed passage ways fore and aft either side of the hangars for damage control access to the flight deck.

Yes, I know there are exceptions and yes, I would prefer the Leander to have a full width/full height hangar. I don't know of any reason why one could not be fitted. As Mr Poiuytrew points out, that would require relocation of the 30mm junk busters. Not the biggest design challenge in the world.

[Poiuytrewq]

Not the biggest design challenge in the world.

Have you come up with a solution yet?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Secondly, the RN specifies unobstructed passage ways fore and aft either side of the hangars for damage control access to the flight deck.

This I have seen in the commentary as to "why not" copy the Halifax arrangement for missiles that had "nowhere else" to go, in the retrofit.

[Repulse]

With the Canadian “win”’ for the T26, I’m even more convinced of a T26 / MHPC mix. Buy 2 more full fat T26s and get a Proof of Concept MHPC in build with Babcock / BMT partnership.

[Poiuytrewq]

Enough time for a change of direction in the MDP?

[SKB]

Does New Zealand need some new ships? Or perhaps someone else? Japan?! *rubs palms*

[Lord Jim]

If they pushed half of the T-31e budget into the T-26 to get at least one extra and the remainder into the MHPC programme to kick start it I would be happy.