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.
jimthelad
Member
Posts: 383
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby jimthelad » 12 Oct 2019, 23:08

Ron, saying things such as that I find offensive. Usually such banality is uttered by those who haven't served. Speaking for most veterans I would say elasticity would be a blessing. Most of us have the events in contact seared into our conscious as or more clearly than even the faces of friends and loved ones . I for one would love some 'elasticity', it would be a blessing to unsee or not to relive some things. Please take care in denigrating those who have seen the worst side of humanity to protect others such as yourself and your right to express such opinions .

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 13 Oct 2019, 04:15

I'd be a bigger fool than you if I took everything veterans say at face value.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 383
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby jimthelad » 13 Oct 2019, 10:11

Who is the greater fool; the fool, or the fool who follows? By all means be interogative about action reports but do not dismiss the first hand accounts of those who were there. The captain of the Gloucester was in JHQ with my father in the late 90's, he seemed to have a very clear account of what went on to me. Perhaps we shall all have to bow to your superior judgement or even agree to disagree? Please do not be so judgemental and denigrating.

S M H
Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby S M H » 13 Oct 2019, 15:47

The destruction of the silk worm was a priority. As the Iraq weapon had been upgraded as later examination of captured weapons showed . This gave the weapon a require capability so if weapon had been successfully decoyed by the battleship it would have reacquired a target. So the weapon posed a major threat to ships in the vicinity.
Caribbean wrote:"Eyewitnesses aboard both the battleship and USS Jarrett recall the missile veering sharply northwards seconds before its destruction, presumably distracted by the battleship’s chaff or jammers. However the tactical track aboard HMS Gloucester showed it ignoring the chaff and maintaining a steady course to the end"

The missile sharp turn would be it clearing to acquire a new target. Thankfully the sea dart removed the threat.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Oct 2019, 13:09

From Lucy Fisher
A quarter of Royal Navy’s 76 ships are inoperable & dragging down Britain’s maritime aspirations, the defence secretary has said.

Forget "rule of thirds", Ben Wallace is ambitious to improve availability of fleet. Forward basing set to play a key part

"https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1187294704272056320"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nava ... -8z9r7mv0d

Cannot see beyond the paywall, but surely (will be) interesting.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jensy » 24 Oct 2019, 13:55

donald_of_tokyo wrote:From Lucy Fisher
A quarter of Royal Navy’s 76 ships are inoperable & dragging down Britain’s maritime aspirations, the defence secretary has said.

Forget "rule of thirds", Ben Wallace is ambitious to improve availability of fleet. Forward basing set to play a key part

"https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1187294704272056320"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nava ... -8z9r7mv0d

Cannot see beyond the paywall, but surely (will be) interesting.


Afraid there is nothing particularly groundbreaking. Just the same topics that are frequently discussed here:


Naval missions in jeopardy as quarter of fleet not seaworthy

Lucy Fisher, Defence Correspondent
October 24 2019, 12:01am,
The Times


A quarter of the Royal Navy’s 76 ships are inoperable and dragging down Britain’s maritime aspirations, the defence secretary has said.

Ben Wallace told the defence select committee yesterday: “If I had more of our current fleet working, then I would have much more freedom to deploy to meet some of our ambitions and tasks. I’ve made it very clear to the first sea lord [the head of the Navy] one of my priorities is to get what we’ve got working.”

Only three of the six Type 45 destroyers are in service, he said. The ships, which cost £1 billion each, need fixing because they could not cope with warm water after problems in the Gulf. The availability of Type 23 frigates, the navy’s other key warships, has also been poor. In July The Times reported that six of the navy’s 13 frigates were in scheduled upkeep and could not be deployed. Four are still in maintenance.

Admirals and politicians have raised concerns about the fall in destroyer and frigate numbers, which totalled more than 50 in the 1980s and more than 30 in 2005. The navy has traditionally approached fleet operability using a rough rule of thirds: a third of its fleet on operations, a third preparing to sail out and a third in repairs and upkeep.

However, Mr Wallace said that he was determined to improve the availability of ships. “When you go to the Treasury and ask for more money, the Treasury will just turn around and say, ‘Well, we’ve given you all this money, and look, they [the ships] are not working.’ It makes the case harder when you go for more ships of the new type.”

The navy’s chronic recruitment problem, which has led to a manning crisis particularly among highly qualified personnel, has forced some ships to remain in harbour.

HMS Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer, and HMS Lancaster, a Type 23 frigate, had to remain docked for months last year because there was no one to man them, it is understood. They were used as training ships for sailors preparing to embark on operations. Both have since gone into long-term maintenance.

The navy is in the early stages of a modernisation programme, which is likely to include more vessels being “forward stationed”. This means basing a ship abroad, with rotating crews flying in and out to begin and end tours, rather than sailing the vessel back to Britain.

Short-term maintenance can also be performed on site, with engineers flown out, meaning the ship can remain at sea for longer. Long-term scheduled refits are still likely to entail a ship returning to a British yard.

An experiment with HMS Montrose, a Type 23 frigate that is now in Bahrain alongside Britain’s four minesweepers and the landing ship dock Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay, has been deemed a success.

Insiders insist that the navy is still maintaining its commitments, including in the Middle East, Far East and Falklands. It also provides fisheries protection around the UK, escorts Chinese and Russian warships near British waters and performs disaster relief.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12165
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Oct 2019, 14:28

The availability of Type 23 frigates, the navy’s other key warships, has also been poor. In July The Times reported that six of the navy’s 13 frigates were in scheduled upkeep and could not be deployed. Four are still in maintenance.

Well, they had 85% availability for a v long time. They've been overextended and there's still an upgrade prgrm... at the same time... running, so what can you expect.
- overall, though, we have allowed a situation to develop in which mass obsolescense is happening. A fine difference from "obsolete"

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1724
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 24 Oct 2019, 15:34

There are a number of things here that need filling in first the Type 23 is coming to the end of there hard worked life and with Type 26 & 31 coming it will help to right some of the wrong's also Capita have had a poor start when it comes to recruitment across the MOD and some of the problems are now starting to be addressed. However we do need 24 escorts in real terms to carry out what HMG wants

I think the escort split should be 8 x AAW , 8 x ASW , 8 x GP

tomuk
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 24 Oct 2019, 16:00

Tempest414 wrote: first the Type 23 is coming to the end of there hard worked life and with Type 26 & 31 coming


We need to not get ahead of ourselves, the Type 23s are here for a along while yet. They are still going through LIFEX and PGMU.
Type 31 won't be here for at least 3 years and probably 6 years for the Type 26

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1724
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 24 Oct 2019, 16:27

tomuk wrote:
Tempest414 wrote: first the Type 23 is coming to the end of there hard worked life and with Type 26 & 31 coming


We need to not get ahead of ourselves, the Type 23s are here for a along while yet. They are still going through LIFEX and PGMU.
Type 31 won't be here for at least 3 years and probably 6 years for the Type 26


I agree but the type 23,s have been hard worked and are now needing more work to keep them going

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SD67 » 24 Oct 2019, 17:49

It’s a terrible situation to have half the core escort fleet in deep Lifex. And let’s be honest this is not maintenance in any normal usage of the term it’s effectively an emergency partial rebuild.
Tough decisions have been put off for years and now we reap the consequences of the repeated push to the right.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 24 Oct 2019, 17:58

We must all hope then, that neither the T26 or T31 suffer any delay before becoming operational and that the required T23s can be kept operationally available until the last (batch 2) T26 & the last (batch 1) T31 are delivered. :roll:

serge750
Member
Posts: 501
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 24 Oct 2019, 18:14

I agree once again the politicians/bean counters seeing short term savings by deferring things that need more money to sort in the long term, kick them cans down the road...…...if they started building the T26 5 years ago ( or even the T31 instead of the B2 rivers might of helped ) would we have half the problems?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 24 Oct 2019, 18:27

Our 2010 report found that improvements were needed and the Department had overcommitted against its budget, which was resulting in short-term cuts and the deliberate slowing down of equipment delivery. This was creating instability and resulting in poor value for money. Since our report in 2010, the Department has adopted a two-pronged approach to improving its financial management. It has sought to:

Address the funding gap in its equipment programme, which was having a destabilising effect on the defence budget, and to reduce costs and deliver efficiencies in all areas of the defence budget to meet the Spending Review 2010 settlement

Improve its management structure by: delegating greater responsibilities to the Armed Forces (the Commands), giving them the ability to decide how to use their resources to best effect within their own budgets, thereby creating a more controlled and financially responsible ‘demand’ for procuring equipment, equipment support and infrastructure; and reforms to the Department’s Head Office, and to Defence Equipment and Support and Defence Infrastructure Organisation (known as the ‘enablers’) to secure better management of financial risk

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1724
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 24 Oct 2019, 18:31

We all know the type 23 can be kept going as long as need within reason but the longer they kept going past there OSD the higher the cost to keep them deployed plus we also know that type 26 is being built at a slow tempo so there is room if needed for change

For me with the move back to having carrier groups we will need over the next 10 to 15 years to look to increase our escort fleet from 19 to 22 by building 3 more type 31's and past that look to have 24 to 25 escorts with a build of no less than 8 type 45 replacements

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12165
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Oct 2019, 18:33

SW1 wrote:delegating greater responsibilities to the Armed Forces (the Commands), giving them the ability to decide how to use their resources to best effect within their own budgets, thereby creating a more controlled and financially responsible ‘demand’ for procuring equipment,


Not sure escorts have shown any direct effects from that change, but after the first full year of "bedding-in" the next year saw the biggest cuts in Joint Command
... could also be that some projects , e.g. P-8 only sailed home by being housed in a new construct (the Joint Command, ISTAR being parked there, where nobody could then make meaningful year-on-year comparisons) and the cuts are not cuts at all, but this 'hot housing' just starting to ease off

serge750
Member
Posts: 501
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 24 Oct 2019, 18:44

OK maybe I was being a bit harsh, to me it reads like that they had to have CUTS & just told the military to make cuts, perhaps the military were being to optimistic, (the pound droppng doesn't help with F35, P8 etc ) hopefully it is starting to improve over the next 5+ years

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Oct 2019, 18:54

To start with the word "Efficiencies", needs to be barred form the next SDSR. All three services need to put forward solid proposals for what they actually need not what they would like, in order to carry out the tasks the UK Government has identified. The available funding should match this, and if shortfalls appear it is the tasks that should be the first port of call for revision. If a task in unaffordable it should be first revised and then if necessary removed.

With this approach the Royal Navy may be able to justify additional platforms and the capabilities these require. For me this should focus on the EOS aspirations held by the UK Government. This is fine in theory but they have to put the money up front for it to be achieves without greatly affecting the Navy's ability to carry out its primary tasks, most linked to NATO commitments.

CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 299
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby CameronPerson » 29 Oct 2019, 14:11

Just a general question really; with a general election now certainly happening in December where will this leave the T31 if the contract isn’t signed by the time a new government is formed... IF, and by that I mean a large IF, a certain member of the Labour Party becomes PM I can’t imagine him seeing the Defence budget as little more than collateral damage

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1724
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 29 Oct 2019, 14:35

CameronPerson wrote:Just a general question really; with a general election now certainly happening in December where will this leave the T31 if the contract isn’t signed by the time a new government is formed... IF, and by that I mean a large IF, a certain member of the Labour Party becomes PM I can’t imagine him seeing the Defence budget as little more than collateral damage


However if Labour do get in it will be a brave man who cuts the T-31 and the jobs that go with it you can just see the head lines now

Roders96
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Roders96 » 29 Oct 2019, 16:00

CameronPerson wrote:with a general election now certainly happening in December where will this leave the T31 if the contract isn’t signed by the time a new government is formed...


The Brexit party's target block is pretty social conservative. BP are the ones most likely to inflict damage on labour heartlands. Social conservatives usually back defence so what with everything else going on, this could be pretty good for T31 and defence in general.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Oct 2019, 18:26

I think the five T-31 is pretty safe, but am less sure about whether all eight T-26 are.

serge750
Member
Posts: 501
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 29 Oct 2019, 19:51

Maybe due to the T26 long (slow?) production run that the various govs in power may think it's not worth cutting because of the negative press to save a few quid....but then again look at the T45 :( unless they switch production from the T26 to another T31 production line :crazy:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12165
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 Oct 2019, 05:47

Lord Jim wrote:I think the five T-31 is pretty safe, but am less sure about whether all eight T-26 are.

p.22 of NSS makes interesting reading as the next-gen AAW should have the first ship in the water by 2033-37, make that 2035 then. 8 years later than the T-26, which are to (?) have an 18 mth drum beat after the first one or two... do the multiplication and the switch between the two classes - in my long held view, variants - is so tight on the time axis that you might struggle fitting that p.22 in-between them.
- cleverly, though, it is titled 'forecast' rather than 'plan'

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 30 Oct 2019, 12:11

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:I think the five T-31 is pretty safe, but am less sure about whether all eight T-26 are.

p.22 of NSS makes interesting reading as the next-gen AAW should have the first ship in the water by 2033-37, make that 2035 then. 8 years later than the T-26, which are to (?) have an 18 mth drum beat after the first one or two... do the multiplication and the switch between the two classes - in my long held view, variants - is so tight on the time axis that you might struggle fitting that p.22 in-between them.
- cleverly, though, it is titled 'forecast' rather than 'plan'


Anything Treasury sourced is full of lies, half truths and spin. Just look at the carpet baggers that have held the position: Brown, Osbourne, Hammond. Wouldn't buy a used car from any of them. Hopefully the new guy will start to clean out the stables. At least he has a background in finance unlike the others.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RichardIC, Tinplate Turleigh and 25 guests