Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

they could, but will they?

There is a pivot towards a group oriented navy, but do we expect the RN will drop all auxiliary tasks?
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:but do we expect the RN will drop all auxiliary tasks?
Some on here do

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The RN has made its choice, its main contribution to NATO will now be a Carrier Group followed by the Amphibious Group. The NATO tasks the RN allocated single ships to will now have to be covered by other member states.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

If that were the case why would they start forward basing frigates just as there about to give up single ship task's?
@LandSharkUK

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Tempest414 Wrote:-
[quote][/quote]the RN could operate 3 task groups if it did nothing else as far as the escorts go.

It could only operate 2 of the 3 at the same time. The centre of the Task Group and 33% of the Type 45's & Type 23/Type 26's in Re-fit at any one time. This only leaves 2 additional Type 26 for FRE & TAPS. A good illustration of why the Type 31 must be able to incorporate an adequate ASW capability.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

Scimitar54 wrote:Tempest414 Wrote:-
the RN could operate 3 task groups if it did nothing else as far as the escorts go.

It could only operate 2 of the 3 at the same time. The centre of the Task Group and 33% of the Type 45's & Type 23/Type 26's in Re-fit at any one time. This only leaves 2 additional Type 26 for FRE & TAPS. A good illustration of why the Type 31 must be able to incorporate an adequate ASW capability.
Yep and that’s in a low risk environment, the building blocks are going to get bigger the higher the risk, which may only mean one task group if acting independently

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

[quote="Tempest414"
]6 x T45 AAW Destroyers
8 x T26 Global combat frigates
6 x TXX ASW frigates
15 x MHPC 100 meter Multi-mission sloops

This would give us a new fleet of 35 ships across 4 classes able to carry out a host of operations across the world as so

2 x Carrier groups operating in rotation 1 x Carrier , 2 x T45 AAW , 2 x Txx ASW , 1 or 2 NATO escorts
2 x Txx on TAPS
2 x T45 & 8 x T26 able to undertake global standing patrols + FRE and TAPS if needed ( and would also form the escort group for the Amphib group)
15 x 100 meter Multi-mission sloops able to undertake MCM , Littoral ASW , Hyrographic and Patrol including UK EEZ , FIGS , AP-N[/quote]

To be clear this what I think the RN escort and Multi-mission sloop fleet should look like. As said above the carrier groups would work in rotation and there escorts and support ship would be fixed allowing them to deploy together and be maintained together. As for the the remaining 10 escorts as you see above I have included 1 or 2 NATO escorts in the carrier group these could be replaced by the same from this pool of ship. However I have always said I would like to see a Commonwealth standing group in the Asian- Pacific and now the RAN and RCN are to have T26 for me a three ship T26 squadron would be a powerful force in the region.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1429
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

NickC wrote:The U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command announced $149.4 million contract award Friday to the Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of their SM-2 Block IIIC missile for surface warships, based on the RIM-66 Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) with active radar seeker as used on the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM. Understand the driver is the planned use on the new FFG(X).

June 2017 Paris, Raytheon announced restart of the SM-2 production line, for SM-2 Block IIIA and IIIB missiles for the Netherlands, South Korea, Japan and Australia, $650M for 280 missiles, $2.32M ea. In July 2018 State Department authorised sale of 46 SM-2 Block IIIA to Denmark plus 4 test missiles with their MK 13 MOD 0 VLS canisters for $152M/$3.04M ea. The SM-2 Block IIIA and IIIB missiles use the older tech semi-active radar seeker head.
Update,

The active radar seeker head comes from AIM-120 AMRAAM, as used on the SM-6 ERAM, to be incorporated into the SM-2 to create the SM-2 Block IIIC

The relatively short range over which the active seeker head is used, its active for only <4–6 seconds prior to impact to minimise the target a/c warning time to activate its ECM and facilitates the burn through.

What can be informative is that US military contracts have to specify where spend occurs (not supplied by UK Government as it would cause too much political backlash due the high foreign spend), with the Raytheon $149.4M contract for the EMD phase what find intriguing is 6% / $9M to be spent in Wolverhampton, anyone know which company? Would not be surprised if that is a higher UK content than in the French/Italian Aster 15 & 30 missiles.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:SM-2 Block IIIC missile for surface warships, based on the RIM-66 Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) with active radar seeker as used on the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM. Understand the driver is the planned use on the new FFG(X).
Sounds like NASAMS, on the waves?
- for the missiles part, only
NickC wrote: Would not be surprised if that is a higher UK content than in the French/Italian Aster 15 & 30 missiles.
- at least that is the case between Gripen (40%) vs. Typhoon (25%?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote: US military contracts have to specify where spend occurs
This was of course designed to support the lawmakers, proving their pork-barrelling efforts a success :)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

shark bait wrote:If that were the case why would they start forward basing frigates just as there about to give up single ship task's?
But how many of the forward deployments are based on politics not military need. If the Politicians decree that we are to base our Carriers in the Gulf the MoD will have to do so. It doesn't have to make sense, so although we will only have sufficient true escorts to properly cover the Carrier Group and CASD there is nothing stopping the Government from demanding one or more are deployed elsewhere as singletons.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:one or more are deployed elsewhere as singletons.
One in Bahrain and one in Oman (a third reserved for the rotation at what - 9 mth? - intervals) does not singletons them make
- lots of US assets in Bahrain
- lots of Omani Khareefs ( et al) in Oman
+ our visiting guest star (the CTF, or is it MTF?) making an appearance every now and then. Just like you don't have to fast all through the year, to declare your 'faith'.

BTW, where else would you forward base T-31s
- Falklands threat picture met with an R B2
- Caribbean rotation has its own special seasonality so no single flavour will meet "all days" of the year (i.e. wht's needed)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe one in Singapore for the Asian-Pacific as we have had ships in the region for the past 18 months and are set to keep one there for some time

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Tempest414 wrote:Maybe one in Singapore for the Asian-Pacific as we have had ships in the region for the past 18 months and are set to keep one there for some time
Not the best demonstration of support to allies in the region if the T31 turns out to be as ill equipped as currently envisaged

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Type 31 as it is planned will ill equipped to support anyone anywhere

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote:Type 31 as it is planned will ill equipped to support anyone anywhere
I have a different point of view.

RN was absent from Five Power Defense Agreement (FPDA) for years. This was a clear message that RN is not an active contributor to FPDA. (only this year, RN resumed). Nothing. Zero. Non-exiting.

French Navy is joining RIMPAC every time. This is a clear message French is a Pan-Pacific nation and has a will to contribute to regional security. Every time, always, clear presence.

Big difference.

Even if T31 is only equipped with a 57 mm gun and 12 CAMM, it is much better than Floreal of French Marine National.

Nothing is zero (no RN ship on FPDA for years). Every time is every time, even though it is a ship just a little better than an OPV. Here comes the merit of Presence ship.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I do agree with these points and maybe if we were looking to keep the Wave class we could send a Type 31 and a Wave class as the latter could prove very useful if not more useful in this region

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I was ignoring the T-31e when making my observation, think more about the T-26 and T-45 and how those are probably only going to be available for "singleton" operations when no carrier is available for or on deployment.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Even if RN and RFA only got £2bn to £3bn of this increase a year it would transform the UK's naval capability going forward.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8031045/d ... ssion=true

£20bn to 30bn over 10 years would do a lot.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo, understand the point you are making but would argue:

- it’s all down to priorities, FDPA presence is probably equally important as presence in the Gulf now to the U.K.
- if the T31e is just a fancy flag pole base, then forget it and just send a B2 River - the influence projected will amount to pretty much the same.
- the French has significant territory to defend so for them a Patrol ship makes sense. IMO the UKs objective is to project real influence and power to be able to help shape the regional situation to what the U.K. wants.
- if a CSG or forward based T26 is not an option then send other real 1st tier assets - e.g. Survey / MCM ships or an amphibious platform.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: then send other real 1st tier assets
Like Typhoons, or maintain an acclimatised ready-reserve in the area (a bn + a jungle warfare school for rotations).

It is not all about ships (I note the headline for the thread - but the comments did not). Singapore (and Malaysia, raising their game rapidly) have plenty of capable ships in the area... and Australia is not that far (if the RAF haven't :D moved it again).

It is notable that the same area is not of insignificant interest to some other parties, like evidenced by "This [2017] year’s Malabar exercise is notable on several fronts. First, it’s the first naval exercise between the three countries to involve carriers from each navy. The Indian Navy has dispatched INS Vikramaditya, its modified Russian-made Kiev-class carrier that was commissioned in 2013. The United States has sent the USS Nimitz supercarrier to the exercises. Meanwhile, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force sent JS Izumo, which left Japan earlier this spring for a multiple-month-long deployment to Southeast Asia before arriving in the Indian Ocean for Malabar 2017."
- Australia and Singapore have earlier taken part as well [ Singapore takes part in large scale exercises in Australia... there must be a fiscal limit to how many major exercises you can be present at]
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- Australia and Singapore have earlier taken part as well [ Singapore takes part in large scale exercises in Australia... there must be a fiscal limit to how many major exercises you can be present at]
This is why I think it is time for a Commonwealth Standing group in the Pacific if the core group was made up of Australian , Canadian and UK frigates it could be joined by ships from Singapore , India , New Zealand , South Africa and so on from time to time with the aim of having 4 ships all year round and projecting real power. These ships could also join a UK carrier group or Canberra class lead Amphib group to for increased power for some parts of the year or join exercises as a red team

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the- ... p-program/

Given the Brazilian fondness for ex-RN vessels and UK designed or built vessels in general, plus their operation of River Class vessels (from the Trinidad contract), quite surprised that River Class, Khareef or T31 hasn't been put forward for this..

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Even if RN and RFA only got £2bn to £3bn of this increase a year it would transform the UK's naval capability going forward.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8031045/d ... ssion=true

£20bn to 30bn over 10 years would do a lot.
As I have said in the past for 1.1 billion a year over 15 years you could get ( plan A )

7 x Type 26 GCS coat 500 million per year ( year 1 to 15 )
6 x Type XX ASW cost 250 million per year ( year 1 to 12 )
15 x 100 meter Multi-mission sloops cost 150 million per year ( year 1 to 15 )
3 x SSS cost 200 million per year ( 1 to 6 )
3 x Batch 2 Bays cost 150 per year ( 7 to 12 )
1 x LHD cost 450 million per year ( year 13 & 14 )

if the budget went up to just 1.35 billion we could still get all this but now do away with type XX and have 14 type 26 ( plan B )

Also at this time our current budget plan is 19 billion over 10 years if we say that 9 billion is for new ships this works out at 900 million a year so a increase 200 million a year you can have plan A or for a increase of 450 million a year you can have plan B

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:As I have said in the past for 1.1 billion a year over 15 years you could get[.....]if the budget went up to just 1.35 billion we could still get all this but now do away with type XX and have 14 type 26
Let's be honest it's all a bit of fantasy but it is the time of year for wish lists :D

Obviously we all have our preferred priorities if the MoD were to be provided with an extra £8bn per annum but I think the important point here is that this statement is coming from a government defence minister. The head of the Defence Select Committee is also calling for an increase in overall defence spending to around 3% of GDP which would be an increase of around £15 to £20bn. A massive increase which is very unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

If we take the £8bn that Mr Ellwood is calling for which would amount to roughly 2.5% of GDP what is the strategical thinking behind it? What does the MoD want to do that it can't afford to right now? It's an intriguing thought and £80bn over the next decade is much bigger than any structural deficit contained in the MoD finances so I suspect many are aiming on undoing a lot of the damage since 2010.

Rather than focusing on individual platforms and capabilities I am primarily interested in the strategy behind the requested £8bn increase. How would this amount be broken down? Would it be realistic to assume that RN/RM/RFA, RAF and the Army would each receive around £2bn extra per annum with the remaining £2bn left for Cyber, counter terrorism, space and plugging the black hole? It's a bit simplistic but it might not be far away.

How would this extra £2bn per annum alter RN's outlook? It would do a lot more than stopping any future cuts and sorting out the T31/T26 shenanigans. It may lead to an entirely different strategy.

A few possible outcomes,

1. Increase manpower back to pre 2010 levels.
2. Increase T26 numbers and build Frigate factory
3. Increase T31 numbers and also raise the unit price
4. Increase Astute numbers and enlarge Barrow
5. Introduce an SSK programme
6. Build a third CVF
7. Scrap the Albions and build LHD's in the 2020's
8. Fast-track the MH(P)C programme
9. Upgrade the T45 with CAMM and extra MK41's
10. Transfer F35b's across to FAA permanently
11. Add more Merlins and marinised Chinooks
12. Add V22 Ospreys

Added to this list could be giving Merlins a ASuW capability, adding Wildcat datalink, T45 BMD, CVF AEW and CAMM, CB90's, the list could go on forever.

What I am interested in is assessing is how RN's future direction would change if the black hole was filled plus RN/RM/RFA received an extra £2bn per annum.

Feel free to help me out.....

Post Reply