I think that is the RN specialist amount.Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:06Is that single or double crew figureRepulse wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 11:40I’ve seen 57 RFA crew documented for Stirling CastleTempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 11:00 To be clear both of these ships have working core RFA crews of 24 to which the RN mission crews are added in theory these mission crew can be moved to other ships if and when needed
Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
-
- Member
- Posts: 56
- Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Presumably that's why RN has reinvested in USV sweep. ASV hunters go through first, followed by ASV sweep to (hopefully) mop up any 'lurkers' before either higher value mothership or anything else tiptoes through...SW1 wrote:They have to be relatively close and are generally the first ship thru. If you’re not expecting the unexpected and acknowledge the possibility you might miss one, you have got to be prepared for the ship doing the standoff mcm will be lost by design.
- These users liked the author Pte. James Frazer for the post:
- new guy
-
- Member
- Posts: 56
- Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Well said sir!donald_of_tokyo wrote:Changing the approach is always inefficient.
- I see no good explanation why RN shall sell 5 T31. RN has such "tier-2" level tasks to do, KIPION. NATO fleet contribution and/or FRE tasks will be also good for T31. If now is 2015 and T31 is not yet there, hoping for more T26 and banning T31 is one idea, I agree (actually, I myself was on that side). But the small difference between the two-plans cannot justify the inefficiency introduced by selling T31s after build. If NATO navies are not providing enough tier-1 assets, ask them to do it. France, Italy and Spain has some, in my view.
- I also see many good reason to utilize T26's mission bay. Taking it off makes nothing. Hoping for "if not be located there, from the beginning" is not bad (or understandable), but it is the past (too late). The demerit of having a mission bay on T26 can be easily compensated by actively using it. And, as T26 is there with mission bay, RN must do it. There are many tasks for T26 which can get some benefits from operating 1 or 2 USVs from the mission bay; littoral ASW, sentry against fast boats, mine-field early warning (let's just find it and avoid it) and more.
- Having 3-4 simple MHC LSV (and an OSV) is also very very reasonable. I actually see no justification of banning them. As I said, T26 or T32 or T83 having capability to operate USV is nothing bad, but it surely must be associated with cheap-to-operate and large-capacity LSV/OSVs. 99% of the MCM task are "clearing the field AFTER the war". See what KIPION MCM is doing. In all wars, in the past, and in the future, need for "enduring mine-clearance operations AFTER wars" are always there. So, simple MCH LSV/OSV is surely needed. It is must.
Overall, yes I can propose many alternative to the current RN plan, "what if". But, I also think the current RN plan is still on good position (thanks to the flexibility of the current plan). Balance is the key. Rebooting/redoing is very inefficient, and still I think the current plan is valid, effective, and efficient.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Nope, that’s quoted as 43. Source: Guide to the Royal Navy 2024new guy wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:07I think that is the RN specialist amount.Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:06Is that single or double crew figureRepulse wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 11:40I’ve seen 57 RFA crew documented for Stirling CastleTempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 11:00 To be clear both of these ships have working core RFA crews of 24 to which the RN mission crews are added in theory these mission crew can be moved to other ships if and when needed
”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
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Presumably it’s better after the usv have been thru regardless of how many times it would be considered prudent that the first manned ship thru is the Mcm mother ship as apposed to the 1b pound asw escort.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:14Presumably that's why RN has reinvested in USV sweep. ASV hunters go through first, followed by ASV sweep to (hopefully) mop up any 'lurkers' before either higher value mothership or anything else tiptoes through...SW1 wrote:They have to be relatively close and are generally the first ship thru. If you’re not expecting the unexpected and acknowledge the possibility you might miss one, you have got to be prepared for the ship doing the standoff mcm will be lost by design.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
However, sticking with the wrong approach is just dumb IMO
Firstly, France, Italy and Spain should and will do what is right for them, we can try to persuade them but each have their own priorities and more importantly ship building they will always chose to support. We need to decide what’s right for the UK, just being another European country shouldn’t be the default.- I see no good explanation why RN shall sell 5 T31. RN has such "tier-2" level tasks to do, KIPION. NATO fleet contribution and/or FRE tasks will be also good for T31. If now is 2015 and T31 is not yet there, hoping for more T26 and banning T31 is one idea, I agree (actually, I myself was on that side). But the small difference between the two-plans cannot justify the inefficiency introduced by selling T31s after build. If NATO navies are not providing enough tier-1 assets, ask them to do it. France, Italy and Spain has some, in my view.
Second, there are many good reasons to sell ships that do not meet priority requirements. The main ones being ongoing costs and crew.
Thirdly, I think it’s time to stop Kipion. Having a first tier warship on singleton deployments perhaps alongside an amphibious ship in the wider region is more appropriate. Equally, there is no value IMO to just add more of the same to the NATO standing groups. The FRE is supposed to be our on alert response to global events, we should have our best ready, and using OPVs and do the bulk of escorting non NATO ships through our EEZ.
I’ve explained a few pages back how with a fleet of 16-18 tier one ships you could meet our real priority requirements.
I think it’s clear that I have differing views from everyone else, that’s the good thing about debate and discussion, but we’ve probably been around this one too many times now. I haven’t been persuaded to change my view and nor have others, the RN is on a course that I think is wrong, but none of us influence that.
”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: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Again is that single , 1.5 or double crewed figureRepulse wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:27Nope, that’s quoted as 43. Source: Guide to the Royal Navy 2024new guy wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:07I think that is the RN specialist amount.Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:06Is that single or double crew figureRepulse wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 11:40I’ve seen 57 RFA crew documented for Stirling CastleTempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 11:00 To be clear both of these ships have working core RFA crews of 24 to which the RN mission crews are added in theory these mission crew can be moved to other ships if and when needed
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Doesn’t say, but all the other numbers are singleTempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 17:02Again is that single , 1.5 or double crewed figureRepulse wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:27Nope, that’s quoted as 43. Source: Guide to the Royal Navy 2024new guy wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:07I think that is the RN specialist amount.Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:06Is that single or double crew figureRepulse wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 11:40I’ve seen 57 RFA crew documented for Stirling CastleTempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 11:00 To be clear both of these ships have working core RFA crews of 24 to which the RN mission crews are added in theory these mission crew can be moved to other ships if and when needed
”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
-
- Member
- Posts: 56
- Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
That was my view upthread....better a £0.5bn (ish) self-escort mothership than the crown jewels.SW1 wrote:Presumably it’s better after the usv have been thru regardless of how many times it would be considered prudent that the first manned ship thru is the Mcm mother ship as apposed to the 1b pound asw escort.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:14Presumably that's why RN has reinvested in USV sweep. ASV hunters go through first, followed by ASV sweep to (hopefully) mop up any 'lurkers' before either higher value mothership or anything else tiptoes through...SW1 wrote:They have to be relatively close and are generally the first ship thru. If you’re not expecting the unexpected and acknowledge the possibility you might miss one, you have got to be prepared for the ship doing the standoff mcm will be lost by design.
Perhaps to rake over some lukewarm coals....problem with a MCMV mothership is it's not geared for expeditionary 'fast reaction' CSG ops. So a MCMV would need to be pre-positioned (forward based). So Day 1 scenario it's toast....unless you forward base some escorts to provide the defensive umbrella. Create a EoS 'combined arms squadron'.....?
OPV+s have many of the same compromises. We compromised with TOBA, and got some 'unwanted' hulls that have exceeded expectations. Yet people here want to bring them back to UK waters to replace them with T31 (RN) an entirely new class (OPV+) just because replacing RB1s is on a wall chart.
I'm waiting for the "but, but it's in RN planning in the Defence Command Paper" replies. Go figure...
-
- Member
- Posts: 56
- Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Your views are valued and cogent, if not precisely mineRepulse wrote:However, sticking with the wrong approach is just dumb IMO
Firstly, France, Italy and Spain should and will do what is right for them, we can try to persuade them but each have their own priorities and more importantly ship building they will always chose to support. We need to decide what’s right for the UK, just being another European country shouldn’t be the default.- I see no good explanation why RN shall sell 5 T31. RN has such "tier-2" level tasks to do, KIPION. NATO fleet contribution and/or FRE tasks will be also good for T31. If now is 2015 and T31 is not yet there, hoping for more T26 and banning T31 is one idea, I agree (actually, I myself was on that side). But the small difference between the two-plans cannot justify the inefficiency introduced by selling T31s after build. If NATO navies are not providing enough tier-1 assets, ask them to do it. France, Italy and Spain has some, in my view.
Second, there are many good reasons to sell ships that do not meet priority requirements. The main ones being ongoing costs and crew.
Thirdly, I think it’s time to stop Kipion. Having a first tier warship on singleton deployments perhaps alongside an amphibious ship in the wider region is more appropriate. Equally, there is no value IMO to just add more of the same to the NATO standing groups. The FRE is supposed to be our on alert response to global events, we should have our best ready, and using OPVs and do the bulk of escorting non NATO ships through our EEZ.
I’ve explained a few pages back how with a fleet of 16-18 tier one ships you could meet our real priority requirements.
I think it’s clear that I have differing views from everyone else, that’s the good thing about debate and discussion, but we’ve probably been around this one too many times now. I haven’t been persuaded to change my view and nor have others, the RN is on a course that I think is wrong, but none of us influence that.
- These users liked the author Pte. James Frazer for the post (total 3):
- Repulse • Jensy • wargame_insomniac
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The figure I saw quoted (24) came from Warship IFR I think your figure maybe 1.5 crew I might be wrongRepulse wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 17:04Doesn’t say, but all the other numbers are singleTempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 17:02Again is that single , 1.5 or double crewed figureRepulse wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:27Nope, that’s quoted as 43. Source: Guide to the Royal Navy 2024new guy wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:07I think that is the RN specialist amount.Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:06Is that single or double crew figureRepulse wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 11:40I’ve seen 57 RFA crew documented for Stirling CastleTempest414 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 11:00 To be clear both of these ships have working core RFA crews of 24 to which the RN mission crews are added in theory these mission crew can be moved to other ships if and when needed
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
You ain't doing any assults with MCMV's. It takes a lot of time to go MCM operations.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 17:10That was my view upthread....better a £0.5bn (ish) self-escort mothership than the crown jewels.SW1 wrote:Presumably it’s better after the usv have been thru regardless of how many times it would be considered prudent that the first manned ship thru is the Mcm mother ship as apposed to the 1b pound asw escort.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:14Presumably that's why RN has reinvested in USV sweep. ASV hunters go through first, followed by ASV sweep to (hopefully) mop up any 'lurkers' before either higher value mothership or anything else tiptoes through...SW1 wrote:They have to be relatively close and are generally the first ship thru. If you’re not expecting the unexpected and acknowledge the possibility you might miss one, you have got to be prepared for the ship doing the standoff mcm will be lost by design.
Perhaps to rake over some lukewarm coals....problem with a MCMV mothership is it's not geared for expeditionary 'fast reaction' CSG ops. So a MCMV would need to be pre-positioned (forward based). So Day 1 scenario it's toast....unless you forward base some escorts to provide the defensive umbrella. Create a EoS 'combined arms squadron'.....?
OPV+s have many of the same compromises. We compromised with TOBA, and got some 'unwanted' hulls that have exceeded expectations. Yet people here want to bring them back to UK waters to replace them with T31 (RN) an entirely new class (OPV+) just because replacing RB1s is on a wall chart.
I'm waiting for the "but, but it's in RN planning in the Defence Command Paper" replies. Go figure...
- These users liked the author new guy for the post:
- donald_of_tokyo
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
If we are really allowed to do this I have one or two in mind if we can…..
-
- Member
- Posts: 56
- Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Move on. Assaults are history.new guy wrote:You ain't doing any assults with MCMV's. It takes a lot of time to go MCM operations.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 17:10That was my view upthread....better a £0.5bn (ish) self-escort mothership than the crown jewels.SW1 wrote:Presumably it’s better after the usv have been thru regardless of how many times it would be considered prudent that the first manned ship thru is the Mcm mother ship as apposed to the 1b pound asw escort.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 16:14Presumably that's why RN has reinvested in USV sweep. ASV hunters go through first, followed by ASV sweep to (hopefully) mop up any 'lurkers' before either higher value mothership or anything else tiptoes through...SW1 wrote:They have to be relatively close and are generally the first ship thru. If you’re not expecting the unexpected and acknowledge the possibility you might miss one, you have got to be prepared for the ship doing the standoff mcm will be lost by design.
Perhaps to rake over some lukewarm coals....problem with a MCMV mothership is it's not geared for expeditionary 'fast reaction' CSG ops. So a MCMV would need to be pre-positioned (forward based). So Day 1 scenario it's toast....unless you forward base some escorts to provide the defensive umbrella. Create a EoS 'combined arms squadron'.....?
OPV+s have many of the same compromises. We compromised with TOBA, and got some 'unwanted' hulls that have exceeded expectations. Yet people here want to bring them back to UK waters to replace them with T31 (RN) an entirely new class (OPV+) just because replacing RB1s is on a wall chart.
I'm waiting for the "but, but it's in RN planning in the Defence Command Paper" replies. Go figure...
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.
In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.
The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Yeah, sea control ship makes sense, my tier one is my dream of a RN version of an all rounder Arleigh Burke class, but failing that a T26 isn’t bad.SW1 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 19:13I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.
In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.
The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
It feels like fantasy, but who knows…
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
”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
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I suspect they are the two big ones that I would put in my tier one must reduce reliance on the USN bucket
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
”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
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I was thinking an iver huitfeldt with a tail.Repulse wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 19:56Yeah, sea control ship makes sense, my tier one is my dream of a RN version of an all rounder Arleigh Burke class, but failing that a T26 isn’t bad.SW1 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 19:13I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.
In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.
The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
It feels like fantasy, but who knows…![]()
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Sounds like an 80% solution.
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
- SW1
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
This is my point of having the 3 x patrol groups one in the Indian Ocean and one in both the North & South Atlantic using T-31s. A T-31 with Sea Fire radar a HMT plus a Sea Lancer container when needed would work wellSW1 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 19:13I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.
In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.
The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
I don't think it is as far away as we think we are just using the wrong ships in a suck and see way. Right now we have or should have
EoS = 1 x Escort , LRG/S , 2 x RB2 , MCM
South Atlantic = 2 x RB2 , 1 x Ice patrol ship
So to move to having 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and MCM EoS is not that bigger jump likewise to have 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and the IPS covering the Med & South Atlantic is not a big jump in fact we could have this by 2030
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
We are miles away. A vessel capable of embarking the required aviation and small boats to move and provide fire support and screen to at least a company of marines/sf plus the multiple purpose escort required to attack targets would be a complete sea change in how aviation is allocated and scaled and the ships equipped to do it. Opvs wouldn’t even be in the conversation. You would need to start again on the surface fleet in its totality which is why imo it’s completely fantasy as a concept now.Tempest414 wrote: ↑29 Feb 2024, 10:12This is my point of having the 3 x patrol groups one in the Indian Ocean and one in both the North & South Atlantic using T-31s. A T-31 with Sea Fire radar a HMT plus a Sea Lancer container when needed would work wellSW1 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 19:13I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.
In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.
The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
I don't think it is as far away as we think we are just using the wrong ships in a suck and see way. Right now we have or should have
EoS = 1 x Escort , LRG/S , 2 x RB2 , MCM
South Atlantic = 2 x RB2 , 1 x Ice patrol ship
So to move to having 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and MCM EoS is not that bigger jump likewise to have 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and the IPS covering the Med & South Atlantic is not a big jump in fact we could have this by 2030
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Two things need to happen 1) MRSS needs to be a 210 by 38 Meter flattop LPD next NMH needs to be a order for 60+ units with folding rotorsSW1 wrote: ↑29 Feb 2024, 11:57We are miles away. A vessel capable of embarking the required aviation and small boats to move and provide fire support and screen to at least a company of marines/sf plus the multiple purpose escort required to attack targets would be a complete sea change in how aviation is allocated and scaled and the ships equipped to do it. Opvs wouldn’t even be in the conversation. You would need to start again on the surface fleet in its totality which is why imo it’s completely fantasy as a concept now.Tempest414 wrote: ↑29 Feb 2024, 10:12This is my point of having the 3 x patrol groups one in the Indian Ocean and one in both the North & South Atlantic using T-31s. A T-31 with Sea Fire radar a HMT plus a Sea Lancer container when needed would work wellSW1 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2024, 19:13I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.
In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.
The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
I don't think it is as far away as we think we are just using the wrong ships in a suck and see way. Right now we have or should have
EoS = 1 x Escort , LRG/S , 2 x RB2 , MCM
South Atlantic = 2 x RB2 , 1 x Ice patrol ship
So to move to having 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and MCM EoS is not that bigger jump likewise to have 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and the IPS covering the Med & South Atlantic is not a big jump in fact we could have this by 2030
stepping forward in small steps EoS the 2 x RB's stay where they are doing the job they are doing we also keep LRG/S there as well by 2030 we have 2 x T-31's deploy to the region and by 2035 the first new MRSS deploys to the region to replace the ASS & Bay . At the same time we deploy 2 x T-31s to cover the Med and South Atlantic along with the 2 x RB2's and IPS when the MRSS replaces the Bay EoS it redolys to this region and in turn is replaced by a MRSS
The RB2's in these regions have a important low level job to do day to day and imo could host USV MCM/ ASW ops as part of a group if needed plus T-31's with 32 Mk-41s and 16 NSM could conduct local area Air defence plus anti ship and Land Attack with TLAM
Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
I was browsing Wikipedia and the Japanese entry of the Mogami class frigate had a neat graph comparing ships that are similar in performance, and I did a quick translation. Includes the "New FFM" Japan are developing as a Batch 2 of the Mogami for a total of 24 ships, apparently all 24 to be completed by 2028.
I wanted to add another row to include prices but did not get around to it. The batch 2 Frigate has 32 cells VLS to the 16 of Mogami (which aren't even equipped to the first 4 built yet), and it is a bit bigger. Expected to cost $1.15b USD for the first 2 ($575mil each, or £458mil). Also, could use some rows for sensors and ASW capabilities.
I guess technically speaking the New FFM will have more missiles as their anti ship missiles are seperate to the VLS while the Type 31 will use VLS for a variety of missiles. The single RAM launcher for CIWS is however a bit weak I would say.
![Image](https://i.imgur.com/EDiIQZ1.png)
I wanted to add another row to include prices but did not get around to it. The batch 2 Frigate has 32 cells VLS to the 16 of Mogami (which aren't even equipped to the first 4 built yet), and it is a bit bigger. Expected to cost $1.15b USD for the first 2 ($575mil each, or £458mil). Also, could use some rows for sensors and ASW capabilities.
I guess technically speaking the New FFM will have more missiles as their anti ship missiles are seperate to the VLS while the Type 31 will use VLS for a variety of missiles. The single RAM launcher for CIWS is however a bit weak I would say.
![Image](https://i.imgur.com/EDiIQZ1.png)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
https://www.navylookout.com/the-factors ... ace-fleet/
Nothing new, just a reminder of the challenges and the capabilities being dropped without replacement especially minor warships
Nothing new, just a reminder of the challenges and the capabilities being dropped without replacement especially minor warships
”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
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
We really getting the 31's in service before the 26's? ![Eh? :eh:](./images/smilies/icon_eh.gif)
![Eh? :eh:](./images/smilies/icon_eh.gif)