Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Repulse]

We really getting the 31's in service before the 26's?

Let’s see - the chart is a bit misleading in the way it’s presented as it’s 5 T31s over four years and 8 T26s over 8 years.

[tomuk]

We really getting the 31's in service before the 26's?

We might get HMS Glasgow first but the T31s will all be in service long before the last T26.

[Repulse]

We really getting the 31's in service before the 26's?

We might get HMS Glasgow first but the T31s will all be in service long before the last T26.

Would be even quicker if we sold the last T31s and bought more T26s

[Scimitar54]

Sell 2 x T31 and buy 1/2 a T26 ? Really, that is not funny!

[jedibeeftrix]

there is the fact that the T31's are not intended to have a long service life (in the RN).

[Tempest414]

there is the fact that the T31's are not intended to have a long service life (in the RN).

A) is that a fact B) is that realistic ?

A good life plan would be 20 years with a mid life upgrade at 10 years

[jedibeeftrix]

there is the fact that the T31's are not intended to have a long service life (in the RN).

A) is that a fact B) is that realistic ?

A good life plan would be 20 years with a mid life upgrade at 10 years

pretty much written into the NSS - that the purpose of the type31 is to reduce service life to get a greater throughput in shipbuilding, and thus improve resilience in the design and build elements.

and it was to do this by getting sold on early in its life with a "RN stamp of approval" to go along with it.

sell it on, and build another - reducing the drumbeat from every 27 months down to something like 18 months.

[abc123]

there is the fact that the T31's are not intended to have a long service life (in the RN).

A) is that a fact B) is that realistic ?

A good life plan would be 20 years with a mid life upgrade at 10 years

If you need it after only 10 years, than you are doing something very much wrong in construction.

[SW1]

20-25 year service life should be a pretty standard goal. They shouldn’t be doing mid life upgrades either. They should be big enough and simple enough with an open architecture command system to have relatively straight fwd capability insertion periodically at relatively short dry docking periods every 4/5 years. It’s the benefit of modularity in thinking.

[new guy]

there is the fact that the T31's are not intended to have a long service life (in the RN).

A) is that a fact B) is that realistic ?

A good life plan would be 20 years with a mid life upgrade at 10 years

pretty much written into the NSS - that the purpose of the type31 is to reduce service life to get a greater throughput in shipbuilding, and thus improve resilience in the design and build elements.

and it was to do this by getting sold on early in its life with a "RN stamp of approval" to go along with it.

sell it on, and build another - reducing the drumbeat from every 27 months down to something like 18 months.

I don't think either are correct. The Navy intends the T31's to have a regular service life and the NSS doesn't mention Parker's idea of selling on "young" ships. Not all of his recommendations were adopted.

[new guy]

20-25 year service life should be a pretty standard goal. They shouldn’t be doing mid life upgrades either. They should be big enough and simple enough with an open architecture command system to have relatively straight fwd capability insertion periodically at relatively short dry docking periods every 4/5 years. It’s the benefit of modularity in thinking.

I don't think you have a clue to the scope of work in a mid life refit. Even with the benefit of modular thinking.

[Tempest414]

there is the fact that the T31's are not intended to have a long service life (in the RN).

A) is that a fact B) is that realistic ?

A good life plan would be 20 years with a mid life upgrade at 10 years

pretty much written into the NSS - that the purpose of the type31 is to reduce service life to get a greater throughput in shipbuilding, and thus improve resilience in the design and build elements.

and it was to do this by getting sold on early in its life with a "RN stamp of approval" to go along with it.

sell it on, and build another - reducing the drumbeat from every 27 months down to something like 18 months.

We know what the build time for a type 31 is or we will by the end of the program but type 26 is another thing altogether as we know they are being built to set slow pace

What would be the best time to sell a type 31 on 15 or 18 years in RN service ?

[tomuk]

We really getting the 31's in service before the 26's?

We might get HMS Glasgow first but the T31s will all be in service long before the last T26.

Would be even quicker if we sold the last T31s and bought more T26s

How would that work? The receipts from the T31 sales given to BAE to speed up build? If so where does the money for more T26 come from?
You know what they say a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[wargame_insomniac]

I don't think either are correct. The Navy intends the T31's to have a regular service life and the NSS doesn't mention Parker's idea of selling on "young" ships. Not all of his recommendations were adopted.

"Not all" doing some very heavy lifting there Ron!

We might all want more Type 26 but there doesn't appear to be anyone in the corridors of power lobbying for them.

Let's try and make use of what we will have entering service before putting a "for sale" sticker on the side.

[tomuk]

I don't think either are correct. The Navy intends the T31's to have a regular service life and the NSS doesn't mention Parker's idea of selling on "young" ships. Not all of his recommendations were adopted.

"Not all" doing some very heavy lifting there Ron!

We might all want more Type 26 but there doesn't appear to be anyone in the corridors of power lobbying for them.

Let's try and make use of what we will have entering service before putting a "for sale" sticker on the side.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy said

Starting with the Type 31e, the Royal Navy will
determine the optimum economic service life
for each future class of ship and this will be fixed
at Main Gate. This will balance initial purchase
costs and through life costs against the costs
of upgrading capability and industrial capacity.
Such an approach could enable the Type 31e to
be available in due course as a “second hand”
option to allies and partners.

[wargame_insomniac]

The National Shipbuilding Strategy said

Starting with the Type 31e, the Royal Navy will
determine the optimum economic service life
for each future class of ship and this will be fixed
at Main Gate. This will balance initial purchase
costs and through life costs against the costs
of upgrading capability and industrial capacity.
Such an approach could enable the Type 31e to
be available in due course as a “second hand”
option to allies and partners.

I'm not sure Sir John was considering, or suggesting, selling them before the first of class has been launched.

Nor are we, to the best of my knowledge, beating off prospective customers offering us the cost price of a replacement ship.

That said, France has succeeded in selling its own FREMMs from the production line. No issue with us doing likewise but it does involve having a customer. One not building the things themselves.

[Markam]

Such a strategy would probably work better if we had more Type 31s (if Type 32 is just batch 2), and we can fluctuate between 5 and 10 active ships as the old ones are sold off when market conditions allow, with a new batch ordered after. Each batch would become more sophisticated as iterations are made like the Burke. This assumes the base design for Type 31 has some legs to it.

I think there is a pretty solid market for second hand ships, particularly in South America and South East Asia, the former due to economic issues and the latter due to pressing need to get mass in the face of Chinese build up. Even Turkey was considering buying used Type 23s (though they apparently even wanted to buy one of the QE carriers..), despite how booming the Turkish ship building industry is.

Personally, I would love if we sold used ships to the Taiwanese navy as a middle finger to the Chinese for all the tomfoolery they keep pulling on us. Most of their navy consists of old US ships from the 80s/90s.

[Repulse]

Sell 2 x T31 and buy 1/2 a T26 ? Really, that is not funny!

T26s are £1.6bn each now are they? Regardless, it’s not just the money it’s the 2 x110 crew also.

We really getting the 31's in service before the 26's?

We might get HMS Glasgow first but the T31s will all be in service long before the last T26.

Would be even quicker if we sold the last T31s and bought more T26s

How would that work? The receipts from the T31 sales given to BAE to speed up build? If so where does the money for more T26 come from?
You know what they say a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

TBF, it was a tongue in cheek comment more focused on the number of vessels in each class and the financially imposed build drumbeat by the MOD/Treasury.

I accept the T31 is happening - there is some room for tweaking some things to getter a better outcome but the opportunities and benefits are limited.

What I do object to is the default position within government that any roll-on T32 class, if it’s real, will be a T31 variant. That’s new money and we shouldn’t be wasting it in the same way - but that’s a discussion about the future which feels a very long way off.

[Repulse]

Whilst I do not buy the idea that Russia will be in a position to launch a major ground attack on NATO countries anytime soon, I can see a conflict in the far east having an knock on impact to the European region (and possibly Gulf, South America and Africa through proxy wars).

One plausible scenario for me is that China invades Taiwan in 2030, drawing the US into a limited conflict along with Australia and Japan. Russia agrees to launch sea operations to stop allied supplies to the region across the Pacific and Atlantic / Indian Ocean. India sits it out, but Iran follows Russia to block the Suez to allied shipping through proxies and also uses the opportunity to strengthen its position in the Middle East. Similar regional protagonists Venezuela and Argentina look to use the opportunity also to further their local interests.

The expected significant surface fleet force levels by 2030 if nothing happens is 6 T45, 3 T26, 5 ASW T23s, 5 T31s and 5 B2 Rivers. Along with 7 SSNs.

As an Easter thought exercise, given five years, no increase in budget, but an opportunity to tweak a few things (changing priorities/selling things to add realistic / modest additions), what’s the view on how to respond and deploy the limited UK maritime forces?

[serge750]

If some of the T45 have CAMM by then - it will help a lot especialy if the Gov's have increased the stockpiles of weopons...also maybe a couple of T31 would have mk 41's with their hopefully increased availiability due to them being new ships, i think we would be in a better place to deter or compete or help with aggresive actions....

[donald_of_tokyo]

I don't think either are correct. The Navy intends the T31's to have a regular service life and the NSS doesn't mention Parker's idea of selling on "young" ships. Not all of his recommendations were adopted.

"Not all" doing some very heavy lifting there Ron!

We might all want more Type 26 but there doesn't appear to be anyone in the corridors of power lobbying for them.

Let's try and make use of what we will have entering service before putting a "for sale" sticker on the side.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy said

Starting with the Type 31e, the Royal Navy will
determine the optimum economic service life
for each future class of ship and this will be fixed
at Main Gate. This will balance initial purchase
costs and through life costs against the costs
of upgrading capability and industrial capacity.
Such an approach could enable the Type 31e to
be available in due course as a “second hand”
option to allies and partners.

The NSS says no such thing. And it doesn't use the term "Type 31e".

You are referring to an older version that has since been replaced with the refreshed strategy in March 2022.

[Ron5]

"Not all" doing some very heavy lifting there Ron!

Sorry but what does that mean? This particular idea from Parker has been dropped.

[Tempest414]

Whilst I do not buy the idea that Russia will be in a position to launch a major ground attack on NATO countries anytime soon, I can see a conflict in the far east having an knock on impact to the European region (and possibly Gulf, South America and Africa through proxy wars).

One plausible scenario for me is that China invades Taiwan in 2030, drawing the US into a limited conflict along with Australia and Japan. Russia agrees to launch sea operations to stop allied supplies to the region across the Pacific and Atlantic / Indian Ocean. India sits it out, but Iran follows Russia to block the Suez to allied shipping through proxies and also uses the opportunity to strengthen its position in the Middle East. Similar regional protagonists Venezuela and Argentina look to use the opportunity also to further their local interests.

The expected significant surface fleet force levels by 2030 if nothing happens is 6 T45, 3 T26, 5 ASW T23s, 5 T31s and 5 B2 Rivers. Along with 7 SSNs.

As an Easter thought exercise, given five years, no increase in budget, but an opportunity to tweak a few things (changing priorities/selling things to add realistic / modest additions), what’s the view on how to respond and deploy the limited UK maritime forces?

I think if we are in this place by 2030 it will be the best we can hope for the key will be to have 48+ f-35 & FCASW in place by then next will be extra NSM's plus nailing down FCF

[Jensy]

"Not all" doing some very heavy lifting there Ron!

Sorry but what does that mean? This particular idea from Parker has been dropped.

It was agreeing with you. Suggesting that a great many of Parker's other concepts (particularly in supply chain and distributed build) have similarly gone out the window.

[Ron5]

"Not all" doing some very heavy lifting there Ron!

Sorry but what does that mean? This particular idea from Parker has been dropped.

It was agreeing with you. Suggesting that a great many of Parker's other concepts (particularly in supply chain and distributed build) have similarly gone out the window.

Makes total sense, thanks