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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12216
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 May 2020, 17:07

Tempest414 wrote: floor rails can be fitted in front on top and aft of the engines allowing a flexible lay out


Yes, I did read that too, but tell me what useful things can you do from the "foredeck'? As opposed to
" boasts a a midships engine location for optimised use of the aft deck and enables lowering stern ramp access to the water to launch and recover specialist equipment."

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3537
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 23 May 2020, 17:18

Tempest414 wrote:https://www.udt-global.com/__media/libraries/platform-design/102---Ewan-McCutcheon-Paper.pdf
Great info. Thanks. :thumbup:

Here is the related presentation file. It is promoting ACRIMS USV (11.3m long) added with SeaSense sonar system.
https://www.udt-global.com/__media/libr ... Slides.pdf
As ARCIMS are already introduced in RN (as influence sweep system), I think this is very promising approach. I also think, replacing the sonar with Canadian TRAPS-UUV (a derivative of TRAPS sonar) will also work.

Looking at the SEADrix movie posted in NavyX thread, and also walking though the paper Tempest414-san has provided, how to use multiple ASW-UUVs will be of big importance. Note than iXblue Drix USV is 8m long, and currently in partner with SEA, to use KraitArray TASS to be towed by this USV (at least in the movie, it looks like the USV cannot self deploy the TASS, but will be deployed AFTER attached with the KraitArray TASS. Interesting, not sure if it can be done on frigates davit)

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2207
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 May 2020, 09:09

Changing tack slightly it is always interesting to see how strategic plans for equipment match to the RN. Below is are the plans for Italian Navy (Marina Militare) to 2034. I accept that requirements differ, but they are not worlds apart and the differences in size and ambition are stark.

- 4 Destroyers (2 Horizon/Andrea Doria class + 2 new DDX)
- 10 Frigates (FREMM/Bergamini class)
- 7+8 Patrol Vessels (7 PPA/Paolo Thaon di Revel class + 8 EPC European Patrol Corvettes)
- 12 MHC minehunters (4 CNG-A – Cacciamine Nuova Generazione-Altura + 8 CNG-C – Cacciamine Nuova Generazione-Costieri)

A total of 45 major and minor warships.

Let’s compare to what is being discussed for the Royal Navy:

- 6 T45 Destroyers
- 8 T26 Frigates
- 5 (possibly +3) T31s
- 5 B2 Rivers
- no funding / plans to replace MCMs and Survey ships

So optimistically a total 27 major and minor warships.

The pictures of the Italian CNG-A look similar to the BMT Venari

Image
”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

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 24 May 2020, 11:57

I would agree on the surface it looks bad for the RN and really we should be starting to look at MHC but I really do think we will end up with something like 10 Venari or the evolution of it to replace the Hunt's Sandown's and Echo's . The Italian navy on paper is what the UK should be looking at and the use of Heavy and light corvettes is the key for the Italians . The UK could join the European corvette program or go for a paired back 107 meter Leander

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1654
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 May 2020, 12:12

Tempest414 wrote:I would agree on the surface it looks bad for the RN and really we should be starting to look at MHC but I really do think we will end up with something like 10 Venari or the evolution of it to replace the Hunt's Sandown's and Echo's . The Italian navy on paper is what the UK should be looking at and the use of Heavy and light corvettes is the key for the Italians . The UK could join the European corvette program or go for a paired back 107 meter Leander


Why have a separate MHC and 107m covert, why not go for the MHCP multi mission sloop ?

Iv often said we should be looking at 20 odd multi mission sloops to replace all low end vessels and low end patrol roles.
It sounds a lot but even then it’d only give us a match to the Italian navy
6 x T45 / replacement
8 x T26
5 x T31
20 x Multi mission sloop
5 x RB2 OPV

Before anyone says we don’t need 20 sloops or for them to do patrol work because we have the RB2s and T31s then you need to look further ahead than 5-10 years.
All 5 RB2s will be needed for UK EEZ so patrol vessels will be needed a for Falklands, Caribbean, Gib / Med and now Singapore so why not a sloop ?
The T31s will be undertaking the current T23GP role not really the above jobs.

We also have to look forget the old saying if there’s no money because they wouldn’t be funded out of the current 10 year budget round but the next so we don’t know what funding there will be or what projects will be prioritised.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 24 May 2020, 12:25

Jake1992 wrote:because they wouldn’t be funded out of the current 10 year budget round but the next so we don’t know what funding there will be or what projects will be prioritised.


Yeah we’ve been using that line for about 30 years + now and how wonderfully well it’s worked. Might as well be never never land.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1654
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 May 2020, 12:44

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:because they wouldn’t be funded out of the current 10 year budget round but the next so we don’t know what funding there will be or what projects will be prioritised.


Yeah we’ve been using that line for about 30 years + now and how wonderfully well it’s worked. Might as well be never never land.


I get what your saying but we often see people on here saying there’s no money left for X Or Y because all funding has been allocated, what I’m saying is this project wouldn’t even come in to plan until the next round of budget allocation.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 24 May 2020, 13:25

Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:because they wouldn’t be funded out of the current 10 year budget round but the next so we don’t know what funding there will be or what projects will be prioritised.


Yeah we’ve been using that line for about 30 years + now and how wonderfully well it’s worked. Might as well be never never land.


I get what your saying but we often see people on here saying there’s no money left for X Or Y because all funding has been allocated, what I’m saying is this project wouldn’t even come in to plan until the next round of budget allocation.


The time between sdr98 and sdsr2010 is about the same time frame your talking about. Start needing to think of the here and now. What are your priorities and what is my direction of travel, plans for 10+ years is too long. Is this particular case highlighted is a ship agnostic system or a ship I invest in or nothing at all. I would suggest the decision seems to be a ship agnostic system has been decided on and that the type 31 will replace the river vessels in the overseas patrol role.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2207
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 May 2020, 14:16

SW1, Whether we are investing in ship agnostic capabilities or not is neither here nor there if you don’t have the ships capable of operating them.

However, there is no point of dreaming about the magic money tree of tomorrow. Outside of a major conflict 2% of GDP on defence spending is here to stay.

I would say that whilst it would not solve a lack of numbers, the following is possible with some prioritisation in the 2034 timeframe.

- Turn the 5 T31s into “peacetime” ASW escorts for the CBG, using the T26s to strengthen during a conflict. Do not build any more vessels after another one to make 6.
- Build 10 Venari style ships to act as the Forward Based vessels and also replace the B2 Rivers within the UK EEZ.
- Focus the 8 T26 on TAPS and also roaming global warships utilising their superior Mission Bays.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 24 May 2020, 14:30

Repulse wrote:SW1, Whether we are investing in ship agnostic capabilities or not is neither here nor there if you don’t have the ships capable of operating them.


Depending on what a ship agnostic system looks like every ship currently in the fleet maybe able to operate them or possibly even a hired or contracted vessels. They may not even need to be operated from another ship.


If we’re talking about a River b2 replacement program then it’s likely that is too far away to worry about at present.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2207
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 May 2020, 16:01

SW1 wrote:Depending on what a ship agnostic system looks like every ship currently in the fleet maybe able to operate them or possibly even a hired or contracted vessels. They may not even need to be operated from another ship.


But we know that for key things like MCM, the T45s and T31s are unlikely to be able to. That’s 50% of the expected future warship fleet in the mid 2030s.

Larger drones will come, but not in the timeframe we are discussing.

SW1 wrote:If we’re talking about a River b2 replacement program then it’s likely that is too far away to worry about at present


No, not really. 15 years RN lifespan for the RN before being sold to another navy seems highly likely. I’d start by building 1 year from 2025, with a decommissioning of the MCMs/Echos in the late 2020s and then the Rivers in the early 2030s.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 24 May 2020, 18:01

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:Depending on what a ship agnostic system looks like every ship currently in the fleet maybe able to operate them or possibly even a hired or contracted vessels. They may not even need to be operated from another ship.


But we know that for key things like MCM, the T45s and T31s are unlikely to be able to. That’s 50% of the expected future warship fleet in the mid 2030s.

Larger drones will come, but not in the timeframe we are discussing.

SW1 wrote:If we’re talking about a River b2 replacement program then it’s likely that is too far away to worry about at present


No, not really. 15 years RN lifespan for the RN before being sold to another navy seems highly likely. I’d start by building 1 year from 2025, with a decommissioning of the MCMs/Echos in the late 2020s and then the Rivers in the early 2030s.


I don’t think we do know that key things can operate from a type 31 or type 45. We haven’t had a production contract yet. There has been trial vessels that have operated from a harbour im not sure if they’ve operated from any ship yet. Also I Include vessels far beyond just escorts the bays being the obvious example as they practised it in the US last year. Also by the 2030s a replacement for type 45 will be well in development.

As for the rivers I thought I’d read there was at least a discussion about a second batch of type 31 to replace them if costs come in line with expections.

SD67
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SD67 » 24 May 2020, 18:15

Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:because they wouldn’t be funded out of the current 10 year budget round but the next so we don’t know what funding there will be or what projects will be prioritised.


Yeah we’ve been using that line for about 30 years + now and how wonderfully well it’s worked. Might as well be never never land.


I get what your saying but we often see people on here saying there’s no money left for X Or Y because all funding has been allocated, what I’m saying is this project wouldn’t even come in to plan until the next round of budget allocation.


I think it would make a great deal of sense for the 10 year cycle after this one, T45 replacement follows on from T26 on the Clyde, the Sloop follows on from T31 at Rosyth. Maybe 20 is too many, but a dozen would surely not be more expensive than 8 T31s, with systems having been derisked in the interim.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1654
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 May 2020, 18:38

SD67 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:because they wouldn’t be funded out of the current 10 year budget round but the next so we don’t know what funding there will be or what projects will be prioritised.


Yeah we’ve been using that line for about 30 years + now and how wonderfully well it’s worked. Might as well be never never land.


I get what your saying but we often see people on here saying there’s no money left for X Or Y because all funding has been allocated, what I’m saying is this project wouldn’t even come in to plan until the next round of budget allocation.


I think it would make a great deal of sense for the 10 year cycle after this one, T45 replacement follows on from T26 on the Clyde, the Sloop follows on from T31 at Rosyth. Maybe 20 is too many, but a dozen would surely not be more expensive than 8 T31s, with systems having been derisked in the interim.


Well if we look at what turns up in the next 10 year round we have

T45 replacement
Albions replacement
Bays replacement
Mcm replacement
Survey replacement
At the very end the start of the astute and merlin replacements.

Compared to this 10 years we’ve had what
T26
T31
Part the Astutes cost
Part the QEs cost
F35B cost
T45 repairs
T23 life ex

Looking at what’s been in this round and what due in the next along with comparing with our allies with smaller budgets is 20 odd multi mission sloops to much to as for ? IMO I don’t think it is when we are replacing roughly similar numbers.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12216
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 May 2020, 19:12

Jake1992 wrote:Albions replacement
Bays replacement
Mcm replacement
Survey replacement

on your list, all these are subject to some transformation thinking, not necessarily similar vessels.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2207
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 May 2020, 19:50

SW1 wrote:I don’t think we do know that key things can operate from a type 31 or type 45. We haven’t had a production contract yet


I think we have a fair view, maybe there maybe a last minute T31 design change, but nothing as capable as a mission bay or deck, hence let’s get them sailing with the carriers. Outside of this we have 2 LPDs and 3 Bays, all have a part to play but all have day jobs also.

SW1 wrote:As for the rivers I thought I’d read there was at least a discussion about a second batch of type 31 to replace them if costs come in line with expections.


Oh god please no - there is no requirement to do this and it would be a complete waste of money. Why on Earth would we want a T31 as FIPS with a 100 crew given the threat level?
”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
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2207
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 May 2020, 20:17

Money will remain tight and the best thing that can be done is to realise that, and keep to budget with the ambition. History has repeatedly shown that by pushing the budget has never lead to “jam tomorrow” and only additional cuts due to short term cash cuts and pushing projects to the right.

My proposed 2034 Surface fleet of @30 Significant vessels of 6 T45, 8 T26, 5-6 ASW T31s and 10 Venaris, I believe would deliver UK EEZ protection/FRE + CASD, CEPP, adaptable RM force, Army Logistics (to deliver a globally a small brigade), plus an affordable/relevant forward presence.

UK EEZ protection/FRE + CASD (+ North Atlantic): Drawn from 4 Venaris, 3 T26s and 4 SSNs.

CEPP: Typically made up of a CVF, 2 T45s, 2 ASW T31s, Tide Tanker, FSS and a SSN. Drawn from 2 CVFs, 6 T45s, 5-6 T31s, 4 Tides, 2 FSSs and 3 SSNs.

Adaptable RM Force: Drawn from 2 LPDs and an RFA Argus replacement.

Army Logistics: Drawn from 3 Bays and 4 Points

Forward Presence: Drawn from 6 Venari (FIPS, WIPS, GIPS, 2 in the Gulf and one roaming from Singapore), 5 T26s (globally deployed and available to CEPP if required) plus 2 Wave Tankers.
”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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5945
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 24 May 2020, 21:09

Scrap all that. All that matters is the carrier groups.

(edit: on the surface)
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2207
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 May 2020, 22:48

shark bait wrote:Scrap all that. All that matters is the carrier groups.

(edit: on the surface)


We’ll it’s a strategy I guess, though I assume you still have some value for defending UK territorial / BOT waters? Still if you do, but don’t care about things like Kipion, then you can scrap the T31 completely, and aim for 6 T45s + 8 T26s + 5 B2 Rivers and operate any MCM operations from the T26s/LPDs/LSDs and Serco ships (or from shore) in UK waters.
”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

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2528
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 25 May 2020, 07:30

Repulse wrote:15 years RN lifespan for the RN before being sold to another navy seems highly likely.



Come on. Considering the perenially shortage of money in the RN, does someone really believes that? :think:
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…

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 25 May 2020, 08:41

As I have said time and again a good balance would be

6 x type 45 / replacement
8 x type 23/ 26 ASW
8 x type 31 global patrol frigate
16 x Venari 95 or a evolution of it

this would allow the type 45 and 26 to get on with CEPP plus TAPS and the type 31 split 4 each side of Suez to get on with FRE , SNMG 1/2 the gulf and Indo- Pacific leaving the 16 Venari 95 to get on with every thing else

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2207
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 25 May 2020, 08:48

abc123 wrote:
Repulse wrote:15 years RN lifespan for the RN before being sold to another navy seems highly likely.



Come on. Considering the perenially shortage of money in the RN, does someone really believes that? :think:


It’s was about to be done for the B1 Rivers, they why not the B2s - they are flawed due to a lack of a hangar / multi-role bay, and I’m sure there will be plenty of navies ready to take them.

Alternative would be to keep them, but a minimum of 8 Venaris would be required (when fully utilising the capable T26 bays, LPDs and RFAs).
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1654
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 25 May 2020, 09:01

Repulse wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Repulse wrote:15 years RN lifespan for the RN before being sold to another navy seems highly likely.



Come on. Considering the perenially shortage of money in the RN, does someone really believes that? :think:


It’s was about to be done for the B1 Rivers, they why not the B2s - they are flawed due to a lack of a hangar / multi-role bay, and I’m sure there will be plenty of navies ready to take them.



I don’t agree here, if they were to continue indefinitely in the low end patrol role then yes they are flawed but consider soon as the RB1s leave service they will all be used around the UK EEZ ( and no 5 is not over kill it’ll be barely enough ) then I see them perfectly suited in this role.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2528
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 25 May 2020, 09:37

Repulse wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Repulse wrote:15 years RN lifespan for the RN before being sold to another navy seems highly likely.



Come on. Considering the perenially shortage of money in the RN, does someone really believes that? :think:


It’s was about to be done for the B1 Rivers, they why not the B2s - they are flawed due to a lack of a hangar / multi-role bay, and I’m sure there will be plenty of navies ready to take them.

Alternative would be to keep them, but a minimum of 8 Venaris would be required (when fully utilising the capable T26 bays, LPDs and RFAs).


Wait, I was talking about T31?
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…

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2207
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 25 May 2020, 10:12

Jake1992 wrote:I don’t agree here, if they were to continue indefinitely in the low end patrol role then yes they are flawed but consider soon as the RB1s leave service they will all be used around the UK EEZ ( and no 5 is not over kill it’ll be barely enough ) then I see them perfectly suited in this role.


I could be persuaded, though my intention was to focus on a core of “useful” platforms forgoing anything optional. As I say, 5 B2s (keeping one as FIPS and one as WIPS) is possible, but I’d still see a minimum of 8 Venari type ships (4 Forward Based + 4 in the UK EEZ / Reserve).
”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


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: donald_of_tokyo and 20 guests