UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 27 Apr 2019, 17:14

Jake1992 wrote:stretched OPV/Covert or a foreign design


Agree on the second part, I see very little benefit building a foreign design, even a variant of it, because the UK will never be the cheapest place to build and the RN variant will be for the RN so even then build support services etc would have very limited appeal elsewhere.

I do however so a lot of potential of a stretched OPV (Sloop) or Corvette, based on the River design which has already 17 variants in build (inc 8 for other countries). Setting up a 2nd yard to build a parallel class of Multirole Sloops with a “Sloop Factory” is both feasible and affordable (say a fleet of 16 with a drumbeat of one a year) with some chance of export sales as well as selling design / build / maintenance services as well as kit.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 27 Apr 2019, 17:53

Repulse wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:stretched OPV/Covert or a foreign design


Agree on the second part, I see very little benefit building a foreign design, even a variant of it, because the UK will never be the cheapest place to build and the RN variant will be for the RN so even then build support services etc would have very limited appeal elsewhere.

I do however so a lot of potential of a stretched OPV (Sloop) or Corvette, based on the River design which has already 17 variants in build (inc 8 for other countries). Setting up a 2nd yard to build a parallel class of Multirole Sloops with a “Sloop Factory” is both feasible and affordable (say a fleet of 16 with a drumbeat of one a year) with some chance of export sales as well as selling design / build / maintenance services as well as kit.


Oh think my comment might if not been clear when I said I don’t see the benefit of a stench OPV/Covert it was interns of the current T31 with my idea of a class of 3 variants based on the T26 being the C1 and C2 if the RN with export potential.

I do agree a multi mission sloop of some sort would be very good for both the RN and export, I always thought of something based on the Venari 95 design discussed on here or an evolved version of the black swan set up for the C3 part to to replace the mcm and echo classes as well as giving a low level security platform for things like anti piracy.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1189
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 27 Apr 2019, 18:56

Poiuytrewq wrote:BAE will build the Frigate factory at Scotstoun if HMG order enough T26's. Simple.


Why we all know British warships are built in Britain so even if the HMG green lighted 13 to 16 T-26 BAE would be mad to build a escort factory in Scotland until the Scottish question is sorted due to the fact they BAE would have to move to keep future British contracts. This is why I am starting to feel Leander will get the T-31 contract to allow BAE to have a foot hold in a British yard where it will build skill sets so if needed it can move T-26 program

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 27 Apr 2019, 19:09

Tempest414 wrote:...until the Scottish question is sorted...
When will it ever be sorted? It isn't going away time soon regardless of any IndyRef2.

HMG needs to invest more in Scotland, not less. By slowing investment and delaying contracts you just play into the SNP's hands.

If Scotland was to ever vote for independence, moving a £200m Frigate factory to the south coast would be the least of HMG's worries.

serge750
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 27 Apr 2019, 19:38

Does anybody have any idea when the next batch of T26 would be ordered ? didn't sturgeon recently say she wanted another ref in the next 2years?

As suggested I agree if we get more T26 they should be a mix of normal & light, light +. maybe the next batch of 3 ? could be a light version and decrease the build time to hopefully give the Scottish some good news then commit to a following batch 3? which could be a full fat version,

Not sure how much money could be saved on the light version compared to the first batch? but only 16 mk 41 launchers would be a start also with no TAS.

Probably best not to do any major alterations so as to share as much commonality and design cost as possible.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 27 Apr 2019, 19:49

It’s only worth talking about buying T26s with bits missing when you have enough of the full fat ones - for me this is 12 min.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 27 Apr 2019, 19:56

If a T26 lite was to be considered I would pitch it as an escort Frigate, basically a 21st century T23.

Remove the Mk45 and auto mag.
Remove the TLAM capability.
Reduce CAMM to 24.
Reduce Mk41 cells to 8 for ASROC.
Reduce Phalanx to one unit.

Add a Mk8.
Add 24 VLS Spear 3.

Retain full ASW capability including propulsion setup and 2150/2087
Retain 8x ASM
Retain 2x 30mm's


Aim for a target price of around £550m to £600m UPC including efficiencies gained by the introduction of the frigate factory and quicker build schedule etc.

Offset the cost increase by building 6 full spec T26's and 6 reduced spec T26 lite escort frigates.

serge750
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 27 Apr 2019, 20:00

I was just thinking if the next batch could be a light version it might entice the treasury to decrease the build time but I agree the minimum ASW version numbers should be kept or preferably increased.

Even if they built the lighter version without some weapons but upgradable might help with a short term ( Hopefully ) budget short full, just snipping round the edges might help a wee bit, even if the first batch was a lighter version would be ok if the build was speeded up IMO

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 27 Apr 2019, 20:09

The simple fact is we can not have less than 8 T26 with TASS as this is very very bottom line to escort the carriers and protect CADS

clinch
Member
Posts: 81
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby clinch » 28 Apr 2019, 09:26

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:...until the Scottish question is sorted...
When will it ever be sorted? It isn't going away time soon regardless of any IndyRef2.

HMG needs to invest more in Scotland, not less. By slowing investment and delaying contracts you just play into the SNP's hands.

If Scotland was to ever vote for independence, moving a £200m Frigate factory to the south coast would be the least of HMG's worries.


Bribery doesn't seem to have worked very well so far. Scotland already gets far more money than more needy parts of the UK as a result of the Barnett Formula. Yet the SNP are being elected in huge numbers.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5733
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 29 Apr 2019, 08:41

Poiuytrewq wrote:T26 lite


Utterly meaningless. Not only does removing a couple of silos to create a 'T26 lite' save peanuts, it doesn't solve the RN problem.

Additional T26 will not enter service until the 30's, by which time the RN will have dropped for 14 escorts. The RN can not drop to such a weak position for a decade, right at the time where is trying to recover it carrier group.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 29 Apr 2019, 09:21

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:T26 lite


Utterly meaningless. Not only does removing a couple of silos to create a 'T26 lite' save peanuts, it doesn't solve the RN problem.

Additional T26 will not enter service until the 30's, by which time the RN will have dropped for 14 escorts. The RN can not drop to such a weak position for a decade, right at the time where is trying to recover it carrier group.
Getting additional T26 hulls in the water that can be upgraded later is far from meaningless and the reality is that RN is planning to drop to 14 escorts with the T31 plan anyway.

If the systems removed from a full spec T26 only amount to 'peanuts' why not just add them to an Arrowhead 140? It has plenty of space for strike length Mk41 cells, could be easily TLAM capable and could also accommodate the Mk45. If it's so cheap why not do it?

It's too simplistic too think of the unit cost of the Mk41 cells alone. Adding a TLAM capability into the CMS is very expensive, likewise the guided rounds from the Mk45 and auto mag.

It's also worth considering that the artificially slowed T26 build schedule is in all likelihood going to cost the UK taxpayer more than the entire budget of the T31 programme. That would buy a lot of peanuts...

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5733
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 29 Apr 2019, 09:43

Integration costs are one off, there is no need rewrite the software for each frigate.

This 'plan' can only be actioned in the 30's, and therefore does not solve the problem the RN has coming when it retires the T23 in the 20's. The above is advocating a cut to the RN through the 20's, in the hope the loss can recovered in the 30's.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3041
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 29 Apr 2019, 10:59

shark bait wrote:Additional T26 will not enter service until the 30's, by which time the RN will have dropped for 14 escorts. The RN can not drop to such a weak position for a decade, right at the time where is trying to recover it carrier group.
But, RN only has a budget for 16 full-fat escorts (counting 1.5B GBP for T31 as two "two full-fat escorts" equivalent). This is fact.

Secondly, RN is only operating 17 escorts now, and five T23s are now in LIFEX, which means even less escorts. Even if RN disband 2 T23GP now without replacements, number of active escorts will not change. This is also fact.

Thirdly, also because of man-power issue, the 1st T26 "needs" the 3rd T23GP's crew in 2025, when delivered, and 2nd T26 needs that of 5th T23. In short, with current plan, at least the first 4 T31 has no crew; two T23 have no crew now, two T23's crew are needed for T26 hull-1 and 2, which means decommissioning of the first 4 T23GP will not provide any crew. In other words, commissioning T31e will require RN to put (or keep) 2 full-fat escorts in extended readiness.

What a madness, I think.

So, even if we
- delay T31e program for 3 years,
- reduce the number of hull of T31e to three (and also making it Floreal-like level to cut cost into half)
- and in place adding 9th T26 by speeding up the remaining 5 T26 build-rate by ~15%
RN loses nothing in escort point of view. With this plan, RN will have 6 T45, 9 T26 and 3 Floreal-like T31e. And, 18 is larger in number than the current 17 (not 19).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3039
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Apr 2019, 13:38

Is there such a thing as a manually loaded Mk45? I thought it relied on a carousel like the Mk8 and even some OTO76.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1189
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 29 Apr 2019, 17:55

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
shark bait wrote:Additional T26 will not enter service until the 30's, by which time the RN will have dropped for 14 escorts. The RN can not drop to such a weak position for a decade, right at the time where is trying to recover it carrier group.
But, RN only has a budget for 16 full-fat escorts (counting 1.5B GBP for T31 as two "two full-fat escorts" equivalent). This is fact.

Secondly, RN is only operating 17 escorts now, and five T23s are now in LIFEX, which means even less escorts. Even if RN disband 2 T23GP now without replacements, number of active escorts will not change. This is also fact.

Thirdly, also because of man-power issue, the 1st T26 "needs" the 3rd T23GP's crew in 2025, when delivered, and 2nd T26 needs that of 5th T23. In short, with current plan, at least the first 4 T31 has no crew; two T23 have no crew now, two T23's crew are needed for T26 hull-1 and 2, which means decommissioning of the first 4 T23GP will not provide any crew. In other words, commissioning T31e will require RN to put (or keep) 2 full-fat escorts in extended readiness.

What a madness, I think.

So, even if we
- delay T31e program for 3 years,
- reduce the number of hull of T31e to three (and also making it Floreal-like level to cut cost into half)
- and in place adding 9th T26 by speeding up the remaining 5 T26 build-rate by ~15%
RN loses nothing in escort point of view. With this plan, RN will have 6 T45, 9 T26 and 3 Floreal-like T31e. And, 18 is larger in number than the current 17 (not 19).


The word Fact is used a lot here but none of of what has been said is fact at all

Point 1) Using the 1.25 or 1,5 billion from type 31 could buy one more full fat Type 26 this is Fact and only might buy two if the price could be got down to 600 to 750 million but it is far from fact that we could get 16 tier one escorts with this money

point 2) yes five Type 23's are in life ex right now this is fact every thing else is your point of view

again point three is only your point of view I will wait and see what happen and if the first sea lord is right and manning in the escort fleet is under control

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 29 Apr 2019, 21:04

https://www.janes.com/article/88149/ban ... -corvettes

With China selling Corvettes (Light Frigates) for peanuts, and countries like Brazil selecting the MEKO design, the export market for the T31 is getting smaller to the point of questioning if the pretence can be kept up any longer:

Fact is, unless the RN is going to end up ordering 10+ in the next decade then what’s the point, it will just waste cash. As @Donad-san points out the crews just aren’t there, the only way is to move the MCM crews to the new ships IMO, so it has to be cheap and have similar crew size to a River/MCM.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5733
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 30 Apr 2019, 08:41

Tempest414 wrote:Point 1) Using the 1.25 or 1,5 billion from type 31 could buy one more full fat Type 26 this is Fact and only might buy two if the price could be got down to 600 to 750 million but it is far from fact that we could get 16 tier one escorts with this money

No it couldn't.

The T31 budget is allocated across the mid 20's. Additional T26 would need budget in the mid 30's. The MOD does not have the power to transfer budget between decades.

Repulse wrote:With China selling Corvettes (Light Frigates) for peanuts, and countries like Brazil selecting the MEKO design, the export market for the T31 is getting smaller to the point of questioning if the pretence can be kept up any longer:

Correct. The market is crowded, and the UK is noncompetitive, but somehow the Brits are going to break into the market by doing nothing different. This has always been the shaky foundation the T31 is built upon.
@LandSharkUK

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1189
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 30 Apr 2019, 09:05

I will it again the NSS is looking the wrong way it is looking at exports when it should be looking at what ships the RN/RFA needs and how best to build them in the UK. I still feel there is enough work and up coming orders to keep 4 yards working

Yard 1 = SSBN , SSN ( plus if we wanted SSK)
Yard 2 = Tier 1 Escort fleet
Yard 3 = Tier 2 escort fleet + MHPC
Yard 4 = All Amphibious & RFA ships

Add to this that Port Talbot steel works should taken back into UK interest to make steel for MOD and the national rail system

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3041
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 30 Apr 2019, 09:43

Tempest414 wrote:The word Fact is used a lot here but none of of what has been said is fact at all

Tempest414-san, thanks. So I made it more strict. :D

RN only has a budget for 14 full-fat escorts, and another 1.5B GBP (1.25 for build and 0.25 for others) for T31e. This is fact.
I understand this is equivalent to 16 full-fat escorts, or even less.

RN still has 2 escorts in extended readiness(*1) and has five T23s are now in LIFEX. This means RN is operating only 17 (or less) active escorts. This is fact (not just my point of view).
This means, even if RN disband 2 T23GP now without replacements, number of active escorts will not change. (my point of view? Very near to "fact" I think.)

*1: Regardless of 1st SL's statement, we do not see any news that the 2 escorts in extended readiness are re-activated. Also, reading his statement, he says the future is bright, but he did not state the 2 extended-readiness escorts has been reactivated. He also stated the man-power has increased from 2016 to 2018 summer, but he ignored the open fact that the man-power in 2016 end to 2018 end is unchanged.

The 1st T26 "needs" her ~150 crew in 2025, not 2027. Fact.
The 2nd T26 "needs" her ~150 crew in 2027, not 2029. Guess on date, but number is Fact.

As we see in River OPVs recently, River B1 were decommissioned before River B2 comes in. So, when ship is delivered, her crew is already needed, not when the ship commissions. This is fact.

So, even if we
- delay T31e program for 3 years,
- reduce the number of hull of T31e to three (and also making it Floreal-like level to cut cost into half)
- and in place adding 9th T26 by speeding up the remaining 5 T26 build-rate by ~15%
RN loses nothing in escort point of view. With this plan, RN will have 6 T45, 9 T26 and 3 Floreal-like T31e. And, 18 is larger in number than the current 17 (not 19).

Yes this is my point of view, I agree.
shark bait wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Point 1) Using the 1.25 or 1,5 billion from type 31 could buy one more full fat Type 26 this is Fact and only might buy two if the price could be got down to 600 to 750 million but it is far from fact that we could get 16 tier one escorts with this money
No it couldn't.

The T31 budget is allocated across the mid 20's. Additional T26 would need budget in the mid 30's. The MOD does not have the power to transfer budget between decades.
Yes and no, I think.

A T31e needs 4-5 years to build. It is the same timeframe F35 needs. By ordering ~12 more F35Bs in 2020s, it will save 1.5B GBP in 2030s. So, even though RN cannot do it, MOD can.

My proposal is to decrease the T31e budget by a half, and build "one more T26" in 2030s. So, it needs ~6 F35Bs to be ordered in 2020s, in place of 2030s. Doable, I think.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1189
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 30 Apr 2019, 09:47

shark bait wrote:No it couldn't.

The T31 budget is allocated across the mid 20's. Additional T26 would need budget in the mid 30's. The MOD does not have the power to transfer budget between decades.


I think you may have missed what I was trying to say. People on here are trying to say if we took the 1.25 or 1.5 billion for Type 31 and spent it on Type 26 we could get two Type 26 as Fact . what I said is even if we could take the money we would be pushed to buy two more full fat T-26's for the money

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5733
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 30 Apr 2019, 09:51

That logic only works for a consumer on amazon buying a couple of products off the shelf.

The MOD, who have an annual ship building budget, can't swap the T31 for T26 because the money does not exist in the same decade.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3041
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 30 Apr 2019, 09:52

Tempest414 wrote:I will it again the NSS is looking the wrong way it is looking at exports when it should be looking at what ships the RN/RFA needs and how best to build them in the UK. I still feel there is enough work and up coming orders to keep 4 yards working

Yard 1 = SSBN , SSN ( plus if we wanted SSK)
Yard 2 = Tier 1 Escort fleet
Yard 3 = Tier 2 escort fleet + MHPC
Yard 4 = All Amphibious & RFA ships

Add to this that Port Talbot steel works should taken back into UK interest to make steel for MOD and the national rail system
Overall, I agree to your point. But, I prefer to make it 3 groups.

Yard 1 = BAE Barrow-in-Furness = SSBN , SSN ( plus if we wanted SSK)
Yard 2 = BAE Clyde/Scotstown = Tier 1 Escort fleet
Yard 3 = Cammell Laired = Tier 2 escort fleet + MHPC + All Amphibious & RFA ships

Keeping 2-3 more yards for maintenance/upgrade is no problem. But, "ship building" is highly skilled and infrastructure intensive business, if you want to keep it competitive. The "Yard 3" must aim at something like Damen, who builds patrol boats, corvettes, frigates, and LPDs, along with several non-military vessels, such as PSVs (and even some cargo-ships?).

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3041
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 30 Apr 2019, 09:56

shark bait wrote:That logic only works for a consumer on amazon buying a couple of products off the shelf.

The MOD can't swap the T31 for T26.
Not sure. Japan Air Defence Force decide to buy ~100 more F35As last year, and ordering its first batch (of additional airframes) in next years budget. It is not like Amazon, you are right, as Japan has been ordering 48 F35As already.

And, the situation is the same to UK.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1189
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 30 Apr 2019, 10:18

donald_of_tokyo wrote:RN only has a budget for 14 full-fat escorts, and another 1.5B GBP (1.25 for build and 0.25 for others) for T31e. This is fact.


Again you use the word Fact but this is not fact as BAE have said that if they could build T-26 at speed to suit them we could have 9 for the 8 billion

Also the use of the fact is wrong both you and me are not able to see what is being planned over next five years you are right that on face of it nothing has changed but we don't know what is being planned so what you have put forward is a good over view on how things are but it is not " Fact "


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests