Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[R686]

How do we compare in terms of ship availability? Are RN ships (e.g. escorts to try to keep on topic) more or less available available than US (or our European counterparts) ships?

Likewise, as I mentioned yesterday, I always hear that RN ships are of higher built quality other navies, how much truth is in this?

Appreciate anyone's views on these points

It's not meant to be taken literally, just a comparison re population and GDP, next obvious comparison if that where true logic you would also have to look at capabilty thru out the 50's to 90's comparing the flucuactions between the two.

As for the current numbers, well look at where you were to where you are now, technology advance may make them more powerful compared to previous, but they can only still be in one place at a time hence the rule of three's from there the ability to surge.

[dmereifield]

I appreciate that it is not a direct comparison but I am interested to know more information of the other variables, beyond number of vessels, such as ship build quality, training quality and ship availability to get a better understanding of where we are relative to our European peers and our major ally

[shark bait]

I always think this image is quite telling. Within Europe the UK spends the most on defence, spends the most per soldier and is the only nation with an even split between personnel costs, equipment costs, and operational costs. What that leads to is a well equipped, well trained force.

Well that's how it used to be at least. The current situation is putting that great legacy in jeopardy, the hollowing out had gone far enough now.

That was a snap shot of the entire military, specifically for the Royal Navy, no other European navy had the operational experience or global reach comparable to the RN, all of which has been fed back into ship design and training. Traditionally they have always been a well trained and well equipped force, but again all that great legacy is being put in jeopardy.

[seaspear]

Though numbers of R.N or even N.A.T.O military forces are down so are the facing numbers that may be arrayed against it, I can remember being in Austria in 1980 and being told Warsaw tanks could reach them in several hours ,certainly Russia has made announcements of naval building programs that have never come to fruition ,and half of which that have been completed have been deployed to the Pacific .
I am not arguing against building up numbers of R.N ships as Russia is likely to increase its numbers of ships when its economic issues are fixed which could be an argument for maintaining sanctions ,another thread perhaps.

[shark bait]

SSN/SSGN = 7 x 5 = 35 vs 58

That highlights the biggest equipment problem for the RN. Not enough subs.

[R686]

SSN/SSGN = 7 x 5 = 35 vs 58

That highlights the biggest equipment problem for the RN. Not enough subs.

Agree but I don't think conventional's are the answer to the UK's woe's in that area.

Conventional wisdom should dictate more Astute's, you already have the production line why complicate it with more logistical hurdles with another type, might keep the boys and girls in the design bureau busby but it's just a wasted expence to me.

[shark bait]

We should build more Astute's, however we can't, and the problem isn't even financial, its because we have to start building successor instead.

I think that's why the suggestions of conventional's exists, because we can't build more Astute's.

Beyond 15 frigates and 6 destroyers, I couldn't advocate building many more escorts, instead the focus should be on subs. Why 15? that guarantees always 5 available, 2 for fleet escort, 2 for independent, 1 for GIUK.

[seaspear]

If cost was not the issue (lol) what type of conventional submarine should be considered ,large types for range and capability or smaller for littoral operations, even the power source can be debated .

[shark bait]

Diesel-electric and big ass batteries. Similar to Collins replacement right?

[R686]

We should build more Astute's, however we can't, and the problem isn't even financial, its because we have to start building successor instead.

I think that's why the suggestions of conventional's exists, because we can't build more Astute's.

Where would you build? Wouldn't you have to use the same facility for a conventional sub program?

Grant they are not nuc so there is some leeway.


It's a pity the nuclear option was not avalible to the RAN, as I was lead to believe one option with the US was a repair and refit wharf in SA, can't confirm but was a little bit of scuttlebutt going around sometime ago, might have been an option with the RAN and Astute's another production line.

[marktigger]

we should be looking at 24+ escorts and proper manpower for all parts of the RN & RFA. Maybe making service in the RFA more appealing.

Could military service attract a lower rate of Income Tax and National Insurance?

[shark bait]

I don't see the value of having that many escorts when we don't have that many things to protect.

We're only ever going to sustain a single task group, with potential to serge with another. Four escorts in a task group, three extras for other tasks, multiplied by the rule of three and we arrive at 21.

[shark bait]

Where would you build? Wouldn't you have to use the same facility for a conventional sub program?

Nowhere, unless significant funds were invested, and we know what the chances of that are.

As much as the RN needs more subs its just going to have to wait until after successor. Unless we import them of course, which also seems unrealistic.

Maybe some one would do a trade, frigates for subs?

[R686]

Where would you build? Wouldn't you have to use the same facility for a conventional sub program?

Nowhere, unless significant funds were invested, and we know what the chances of that are.

As much as the RN needs more subs its just going to have to wait until after successor. Unless we import them of course, which also seems unrealistic.

Maybe some one would do a trade, frigates for subs?

Canada?

[whitelancer]

I don't see the value of having that many escorts when we don't have that many things to protect.

We're only ever going to sustain a single task group, with potential to serge with another. Four escorts in a task group, three extras for other tasks, multiplied by the rule of three and we arrive at 21.

I think you underestimate the number of escorts required to adequately protect a task force as well as the number of assets that may need protecting.
I would add that referring to T45 and T23/26 as escorts is a mistake. If their must be a generic term for them "Surface Combatant" better reflects the wide range of tasks, which includes but is not limited to escorting, that they are required to perform.

[marktigger]

we need more escorts as we not only need to escort the CBG but also the Amphibious group and the logistic chain. We should have suficient vessels to cover current standing tasks, ships in refit, training, patrol and some spare capability for the unforseen. Maybe even a couple in reserve?

[arfah]

The UK CBG and the ARG will be sharing the same carrier.

[shark bait]

A serious amphibious group will not sail without carrier support, Air power is too important.

21 escorts places 4 with a task group, 3 on standing tasks, and 7 more available for serge conditions, with the final 7 unavailable. I struggle to find a situation where we would need more that considering how few carriers we have to escort.

That enables a well protected carrier group, and 3 standing tasks to be sustained to protect British interests. This is before we have considered working with our NATO partners who could supply a carrier escort, releasing a frigate for an independent deployment, perhaps to the indo-pacific region working with our Five Power's partners for example.

I don't see the need to differentiate between "Surface Combatant" and Escorts, they are the same thing, if it can't escort it isn't worth spending billions pounds on.

[marktigger]

we should have not less than 24 available escorts.

I hope your idea of 4 escorts is a routine deployment in peacetime? because its not a serious proposition for deploying on operations especially with the reliance on systems than cannot be rearmed at sea! And who says we are going to be only having to deal with one thing at a time. Yes our allies can step up like New Zealand did in the Falklands to release a frigate. but the current Surface fleet should be seen as the absolute minimum number of Frigates and Destroyers and we should be looking to expand them partially as part of an industrial policy and partially to improve the capability of the fleet.

[shark bait]

Beyond "more is better", what are the strategic benefits of having more than 24 escorts?

Sure having 30 frigates would be great, but its going to come at a cost of other capabilities through out the armed forces, which inst acceptable.

[marktigger]

it allows you flexibility
you can reduce deployment time there by reducung the stress on your personnel
it allows you to do more
you can do more soft power defence diplomacy
It allows proper times for maintainence and refit
It allows more time for training
Improves export potential of systems/vessels
improves employment both service and civilian

[shark bait]

I would argue most of that could be done with 21 to 24 escorts.

Its a waste of resources to build and operate way more escorts than we have carriers that require escorting. Routinely we will only ever have 1 carrier / amphib deployed that requires escorting, with the possibility for 2 in a maximum effort scenario. There is little value spending huge sums on extra escorts if they have nothing to escort, especially when funding is sorely needed elsewhere.

The UK should prioritise air power and submarines, they are the most potent weapons we have, and we are very good at building and operating them.

[marktigger]

I agree about submarines to some extent but only after there are more than 24 surface escorts we should be looking at a ratio of 3:1 3 surface escorts to 1 SSK(N). Air power hmmmm yes the FAA should be expanding.

[LordJim]

Resources including manpower are going to be in shorter and shorter supply as we move forward. If the RN gets 8 T-26s to go with the 6 T-45s, besides being lucky it needs to reserve these for use with the Carriers with or without the Amphibs. That is why we need the cheap and cheerful T-31 to cover everything else. It is not going to patrol off the Kola peninsular or operate alone in the Gulf so it just needs enough capabilities to look after itself against realistic opposition whist doing its assigned tasks. Imagine a Leander class but with Artisan, Sea Ceptor and a 76mm Gun. Add a wildcat and you probably have the best we can expect. No ASM, no TASS only a basic hull mounted unit. No mission bay and no VLS (except for the SAM). Minimum crew and quarters for a small RM detachment and there you have it.

I say the RN will be lucky to get all 8 T-26s because I can see the number dropping to 6 in either of the next two Defence Reviews to free up funding for other programmes. Hopefully that would be countered by a purchase of around 8 T-31s. It isn't ideal, and certainly not what we would like to see but it is a reality with a strong possibility.

[marktigger]

Lord Jim its been discussed that one of the roles identified in the specification for the Type 31 will Be NGS so 76mm is NOT viable it also adds more expense carrying different spares and supply line as well as 2nd type of ammunition. so sticking to 127mm is the more likely option.
But Disagree with your analysis if govt have the will to make serving in the armed forces more appealing there is no reason why they couldn't man a bigger fleet.