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.
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 16 May 2019, 08:42

shark bait wrote:I'm glad the DIT recognise this, if only the MOD would follow suite. Unfortunately the MOD prefer to believe the world wants cheap patrol frigates built in England because that's more convenient for their budget.


Now is this the MOD or HMG that want to believe this to suit there budget. plus they could still be built in Scotland

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 16 May 2019, 09:16

All-Party Parliamentary Group for Shipbuilding publish report on the industry

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/all-pa ... -industry/

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ooeodunl5046o ... 9.pdf?dl=0

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 16 May 2019, 09:28

Ten solid points in that document
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 16 May 2019, 09:38

shark bait wrote:I'm glad the DIT recognise this, if only the MOD would follow suit. Unfortunately the MOD prefer to believe the world wants cheap patrol frigates built in England because that's more convenient for their budget.


:clap: Completely agree
"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

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3040
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 16 May 2019, 12:18

Without going too off topic, does this mean we have or will obtain the IP for the Ajax and Boxer when with the sites established in this country for their final assembly? If not it seems we have missed a trick there, but it should be possible to do so as the Ajax is a highly modified ASCOD and we could and up being the largest user of Boxer and be the main production site in the longer term.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 16 May 2019, 12:50

Lord Jim wrote:Without going too off topic, does this mean we have or will obtain the IP for the Ajax and Boxer when with the sites established in this country for their final assembly? If not it seems we have missed a trick there, but it should be possible to do so as the Ajax is a highly modified ASCOD and we could and up being the largest user of Boxer and be the main production site in the longer term.


I believe we already have the IP for Ajax as we have offered it to Australia for their Land400 phase 4 I believe as well as shown a version to the US for there Bradly replacement.
With boxer we have rejoin the project as a partner and regained all our original rights ( manufacture and sell our own )

Online
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 16 May 2019, 13:08

shark bait wrote:I'm glad the DIT recognise this, if only the MOD would follow suit. Unfortunately the MOD prefer to believe the world wants cheap patrol frigates built in England because that's more convenient for their budget.


That made me laugh out loud :clap:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 16 May 2019, 13:21

Good news :thumbup:

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1837
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 16 May 2019, 13:49

Evidence to help validate the previous statements of the 2SL (I think it was him) that manning issues were easing - didn't he say something about PoW now having a full crew or sufficient crew were now available to get all the escorts back active (I seem to remember something along these lines but don't recall the details)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 May 2019, 14:28

dmereifield wrote:Evidence to help validate the previous statements of the 2SL (I think it was him) that manning issues were easing - didn't he say something about PoW now having a full crew or sufficient crew were now available to get all the escorts back active (I seem to remember something along these lines but don't recall the details)
It was the first sea lord who said: “Despite having to endure some deficiencies in our manning over the last couple of years – which caused us to designate a couple of our frigates and destroyers as harbour training ships and adaptive force ships, running with a smaller ship’s companies – we’re now through that.

I’m pleased to say we have two crews for the two carriers [and] it’s not at the expense of manning elsewhere in the fleet.”


But,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1-_SPS.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 18_SPS.pdf
says the increase is not that large to cover the two escorts in extended readiness.

I read his argument that, the bad trend has stopped. Does "we’re now through that" means the 2 escorts in extended readiness has recommissioned? I have no such info. What he states is, he figured out a way to man PoW but do not explicitly says the 2 escort are now recommissioned. (Correct me if I'm wrong...).

Save the Royal Navy has a good article here. To my understanding, RN man-power just stopped decreasing, not yet increasing at pace.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/has-th ... -problems/

I agree it is a positive trend. But we also know we need a few years to train those new comers. So 100 increase in trained personnel is much more important. That is great. At about half could be assigned to a ship, it means RN can "man" another River B2, which requires 60 crew including rotation, but not yet a T45 or T23, who requires ~200.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2080
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 16 May 2019, 14:40

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
shark bait wrote:FREMM cost's around €1,000m/unit @ 2028 prices.
FTI will cost around €760/unit @ 2028 prices.

Not insignificant.
Interesting. But it means 4 FREMM full or 5 FTI.

On the other hand, FTI cost includes detailed design and initial costs. For example, Naval’s person said now 300 engineer is working on FTI detailed design, to be followed by the steel cut next year. In case of FREMM, it was 3 unitcost equivalent. If the same, FTI unit cost will be 475M Euro...

French is investing a lot on ship design.


Yeep, also, FREMM design costs are allready spent, while FTI aren't.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 May 2019, 15:42

Interesting table from the report.
aslists.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 16 May 2019, 16:19

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Interesting table from the report.
aslists.jpg
The thing that stood out to me in that table was the replacement date for the RB1's.

Clearly getting rid of the RB1's when the RB2's commissioned was just another cut but realistically how many OPV's without hangers does the UK actually need?

Also interesting that the report suggested the possibility of OPV's carrying out many of the low intensity maritime patrol roles that the T31's have been designed to perform.

It's seems the T31 idea is gradually running out of advocates, certainly at the £250m price point.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1837
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 16 May 2019, 22:42

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Evidence to help validate the previous statements of the 2SL (I think it was him) that manning issues were easing - didn't he say something about PoW now having a full crew or sufficient crew were now available to get all the escorts back active (I seem to remember something along these lines but don't recall the details)
It was the first sea lord who said: “Despite having to endure some deficiencies in our manning over the last couple of years – which caused us to designate a couple of our frigates and destroyers as harbour training ships and adaptive force ships, running with a smaller ship’s companies – we’re now through that.

I’m pleased to say we have two crews for the two carriers [and] it’s not at the expense of manning elsewhere in the fleet.”


But,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1-_SPS.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 18_SPS.pdf
says the increase is not that large to cover the two escorts in extended readiness.

I read his argument that, the bad trend has stopped. Does "we’re now through that" means the 2 escorts in extended readiness has recommissioned? I have no such info. What he states is, he figured out a way to man PoW but do not explicitly says the 2 escort are now recommissioned. (Correct me if I'm wrong...).

Save the Royal Navy has a good article here. To my understanding, RN man-power just stopped decreasing, not yet increasing at pace.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/has-th ... -problems/

I agree it is a positive trend. But we also know we need a few years to train those new comers. So 100 increase in trained personnel is much more important. That is great. At about half could be assigned to a ship, it means RN can "man" another River B2, which requires 60 crew including rotation, but not yet a T45 or T23, who requires ~200.


Thank you Donald

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 17 May 2019, 13:25

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Interesting table from the report. aslists.jpg
The thing that stood out to me in that table was the replacement date for the RB1's.

Clearly getting rid of the RB1's when the RB2's commissioned was just another cut but realistically how many OPV's without hangers does the UK actually need?

Also interesting that the report suggested the possibility of OPV's carrying out many of the low intensity maritime patrol roles that the T31's have been designed to perform.

It's seems the T31 idea is gradually running out of advocates, certainly at the £250m price point.


For me it is about keeping the B1's for home waters leaving the B2's to be split like so

1 Falklands
1 Med
1 AP-N
2 to be tasked as fit

This frees up the Type 31 to be forward deployed as seen fit

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 17 May 2019, 13:35

dmereifield wrote:Thank you Donald
Sorry, more relevant information here.

Trained manpower in April 2019 is still 360 less than April 2017 and 80 less than April 2018. These are the years RN started putting 2 escorts in extended readiness. There is no rationale to hope these 2 ships will be re-activated soon...

Do RN need to stick to "19 escort" saga anymore ? It is doing more harm than good, I'm afraid.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 17 May 2019, 13:52

Moved from T26 thread.
This is great news!! I even think T26 and T31 should have all their CAMM launcher replaced with ExLS. As reserved space is more limited in T31e, adoption of ExLS will benefit T31e a lot, especially the Leander design.

For example, among the two forward 6-mushroom blocks, replace one with 3-cell ExLS to carry 12 CAMM, and even leave the other side vacant (to save money). This will be a clear message, "24 CAMM is just a matter of money". When MOD finds, say, 20M GBP x 5 = 100M GBP in near future, all 5 hulls will be immediately carry 24 CAMM.

High-density CAMM silo enables small vessel to carry more CAMM. For CAMM export, this will be essential. With ExLS, I think (hope?) CAMM export will more increased.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3040
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 17 May 2019, 18:57

If the Royal Navy went for the three cell stand alone ExLS launcher as a start, it could open up a lot of options going forward. Its installation would bring benefits to both the T-26 and T-31e, with the former being able to carry all 48 Sea Ceptor amidships freeing up room up front for additional Mk41s, and obviously having the T-31e FFBNW two ExLS allows flexibility as to when and how many Sea Ceptor car carrier.

The nature of the stand alone ExLS also allows the rapid replenishment of warships in port, even under austere conditions if an RFA is Present.

Moving forward the adoption of this systems would make it a obvious option if it were decided to equip the Carriers with Sea Ceptor and opens the possibility of equipping vessels with an air defence capability that would not normally be so.

Finally if the stand alone systems is in place with the necessary support infrastructure, it would only be a small leap to adopt the Mk41 insert variant for other platforms in future. This would be where having the remaining five T-26 built to a similar layout to the Australian and Canadian variants, where the number of Mk41s is increased and all Mushrooms removed. The space amidships is available for other roles as needed. In the RNs case the other existing systems would remain the same on their T-26 and the initial three vessels could be changed to this design during a future refit if desired. In theory the T-26 could have up to six Mk41s installed dependant on the type used in which location. Having say two Strike length, two Standard length and two Self Defence Length would give each T-26 far great firepower and flexibility, over the current design.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 17 May 2019, 19:21

Lord Jim wrote:If the Royal Navy went for the three cell stand alone ExLS launcher as a start, it could open up a lot of options going forward. Its installation would bring benefits to both the T-26 and T-31e, with the former being able to carry all 48 Sea Ceptor amidships freeing up room up front for additional Mk41s, and obviously having the T-31e FFBNW two ExLS allows flexibility as to when and how many Sea Ceptor car carrier.

The nature of the stand alone ExLS also allows the rapid replenishment of warships in port, even under austere conditions if an RFA is Present.

Moving forward the adoption of this systems would make it a obvious option if it were decided to equip the Carriers with Sea Ceptor and opens the possibility of equipping vessels with an air defence capability that would not normally be so.

Finally if the stand alone systems is in place with the necessary support infrastructure, it would only be a small leap to adopt the Mk41 insert variant for other platforms in future. This would be where having the remaining five T-26 built to a similar layout to the Australian and Canadian variants, where the number of Mk41s is increased and all Mushrooms removed. The space amidships is available for other roles as needed. In the RNs case the other existing systems would remain the same on their T-26 and the initial three vessels could be changed to this design during a future refit if desired. In theory the T-26 could have up to six Mk41s installed dependant on the type used in which location. Having say two Strike length, two Standard length and two Self Defence Length would give each T-26 far great firepower and flexibility, over the current design.


This is what I’ve been saying for a long time now that with ExLS all 48 CAMM or CAMM-ER could be fitted mid ship ( maybe more if desired ) free space up front for 48 Mk41s, personally I’d go for all strike length as it’d give far greater flexibility I really can’t see what the self defence option would offer us since were using CAMM.

It’d also open up options not just for the carriers but also the T45s and any possible future LPD replacement.
The mushroom cells are just a waste and really reduces the future flexibility of any vessels and CAMMELL sales.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 17 May 2019, 20:04

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Interesting table from the report.
aslists.jpg


Confirmation also that another Sandown MCM will go so a total of 6 to go with the Hunts. That helps explain where the crews for the B1s are coming from.

Saw the 3-4 Survey ships, I wonder if it includes Magpie of Protector? Either way suggests HMS Scott is still under threat.
"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

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3040
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 17 May 2019, 20:14

Jake1992 wrote:This is what I’ve been saying for a long time now that with ExLS all 48 CAMM or CAMM-ER could be fitted mid ship ( maybe more if desired ) free space up front for 48 Mk41s, personally I’d go for all strike length as it’d give far greater flexibility I really can’t see what the self defence option would offer us since were using CAMM.It’d also open up options not just for the carriers but also the T45s and any possible future LPD replacement. The mushroom cells are just a waste and really reduces the future flexibility of any vessels and CAMMELL sales


The use of the Self Defence Length Mk41 would be to accommodate the Sea Ceptors on the T-26 and the standalones would not be fitted. We only need the full Strike Length of carrying TLAM or its successor as the Standard length can accommodate VL-ASROC and most of the other options including most of the Standard missile variants. Whether you can fit six Strike Length Mk41s forward on the T-26 I do not know. I just seem to think we are building the "Budget" variant of the T-26 and both Canada and Australia are exploiting the designs potential far more.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 17 May 2019, 20:31

Lord Jim wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:This is what I’ve been saying for a long time now that with ExLS all 48 CAMM or CAMM-ER could be fitted mid ship ( maybe more if desired ) free space up front for 48 Mk41s, personally I’d go for all strike length as it’d give far greater flexibility I really can’t see what the self defence option would offer us since were using CAMM.It’d also open up options not just for the carriers but also the T45s and any possible future LPD replacement. The mushroom cells are just a waste and really reduces the future flexibility of any vessels and CAMMELL sales


The use of the Self Defence Length Mk41 would be to accommodate the Sea Ceptors on the T-26 and the standalones would not be fitted. We only need the full Strike Length of carrying TLAM or its successor as the Standard length can accommodate VL-ASROC and most of the other options including most of the Standard missile variants. Whether you can fit six Strike Length Mk41s forward on the T-26 I do not know. I just seem to think we are building the "Budget" variant of the T-26 and both Canada and Australia are exploiting the designs potential far more.


I’m not sure that hot lurnch can be fitted mid ship, if your suggesting using some of the potential 48 cells forward for CAMM then I believe it’s a waste when CAMM can be accommodated mid ship using ExLS leaving all potential 48 Mk41s free for other use.

Would strike length be needed for the future AShM/land strike ?

I agree we are building the budget version and it’s such a shame, like Iv said before the design allows for 48-60 CAMM / CAMM-ER and 48 Mk41s yet we’re not exploiting enough of this.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 17 May 2019, 20:50

What @Donald-sans table also shows is that there 24 MCMs, Survey ships and OPVs that need to be replaced from 2025 to mid 2040s - what a great opportunity for a “minor warship” factory :D
"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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 18 May 2019, 01:52

Please note 24 more Land attack missiles on 8 hulls means at least 200 more missiles. This will easily amount to 800M GBP which can kill one T26. I don’t like it.

The reason why I propose to just replace the mushrooms with the same amount of CAMM, and no mention of Mk 41.

But I agree ExLS will make it very easy, if RN intend to add CAMM to T45 and CV (for example when T31 program collapse).

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 18 May 2019, 02:03

Repulse wrote:What @Donald-sans table also shows is that there 24 MCMs, Survey ships and OPVs that need to be replaced from 2025 to mid 2040s - what a great opportunity for a “minor warship” factory :D
Yes. It means one hull per 1.5 years drumbeat with ~30 years life assumed in this table. Not efficient at all.

Furthermore, large ship building may not be able to survive between FSS on 2025, and LPD/LSDs on 2035-40.

So combining these two will be more pragmatic.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jake1992 and 14 guests