Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[seaspear]

With regards to the capabilities of U.S torpedoes anything published you can expect to be different to the classified information marked as Secret that gives a very specific breakdown of capabilities in its operations

[Lord Jim]

Is it just me but the RN appears to be far keener to simply get new hulls in the water that actually have ships with full combat capability, with most being kitted out so that that will operate well below their true potential. Now don't get me wrong this is better than no new platforms, but the RN seems to have evolved for FFBNW to leave space and hopefully we can afford to fit something later on. If you look at the T-45, T-26, T-31e submissions and the two Queen Elizabeths they all have austere weapon fits, with the T-45 being the best of the bunch. The T-26 is, as currently planned, woefully under armed for a vessel of their size. The T-31 is armed as a patrol vessel whilst being touted by the Government as a Frigate, and the Queen Elizabeth cannot defend itself against anything but the most simplistic of attacks. We will have two of the largest but by far the most poorly armed Carriers ever built. It is going to be compulsory to have two T-45s as escorts every time they go anywhere that isn't totally benign, with at least two T-26 acting as very large, expensive Towed array tractors. Whether the carriers will ever have enough F-35s on board to carry out both defensive and offensive sorties at the same time is debateable and as the Merlins are the principal delivery system for ASW, a minimum of eight are going to have to be carried in this role plus sufficient CROWSNEST to allow 24/7 coverage of the Carrier group. It isn't hard to imagine the new carriers having only slightly more offensive punch that the old CVLs wit the exception of LO capabilities of the F-35.

I still believe the Army should be prioritised when to comes to any new money but the RN is currently a paper Tiger, a bit like the Army having Challenger 2s but no ammunition for the main gun, only that for the co-axial MG. Again without additional new money to fill the foreseen shortfall and allow additional expenditure, the RN may have to choose the forge the T-31e if ot wants its other new combat platform properly fitted out with the systems they need to be effective. If not the T-26 and Queen Elizabeths are mainly useful for flag waving deployments, and people complain when the T-31 is mooted as such.

[benny14]

If the type 26, an advanced anti-submarine frigate comes in to service without ASROC then I just cant even anymore...

[Old RN]

On an unrelated note, a little upthread lies a debate about the various merits of ASROC, ship-launched lightweight torpedoes and a reliance on helicopter-launched weapons. Given the general consensus that lightweight torpedoes are marginally effective (ie, better than nothing, but not ideal), I wonder if there is any precedent for launching a heavyweight torpedo like Spearfish from a surface vessel, as either an ASW or ASuW?

After WW2 the RN ASW class (Type 12) was planned to carry 21" Mk 20 ASW torpedoes and I think the first one or two were fitted. The Mk 20 was such a slow and poor torpedo that the whole thing was dropped. I personally believe that installing Spearfish on surface escorts would be a very interesting ASW and anti ship option. The Russians appear to think so!

[Caribbean]

Never mind that, let's see this example: so, you have a car that breaks down oftenly, but you had say no problems with tires. So, you will put out of trunk a spare tyre and tool to change her, because last time you had battery problems?

So I give an example of the experience of, arguably, the best ASW naval force in existence at the time and you come up with a load of non-sensical piffle. Wow! Nice one

[Gabriele]

Torpedo failures are first of all down to the torpedoes themselves. If they are crap, little can be done about it. Secondarily it is down to firing on false contacts. What matters, anyway, is not necessarily killing the submarine. The battle of the Atlantic was won making submarines unable to successfully prosecute their targets, not by killing them all. Their number actually kept growing. Forcing them to evade and lose contact is key, and if the escort ship has nothing to fire at them they are not going to lose contact. Better hope that an helicopter is already up and close by, otherwise you are in a world of trouble. And since the British asw frigates can only carry one Merlin or two wildcats, the latter completely blind to underwater situation and currently not even fitted with a damn data link... Yeah, not impressive. Rather have a fremm asw with the same sonars and torpedoes and two nh90 asw aboard.

[Tempest414]

Still feel the RN is thinking that as long as they have the hulls they can add armament under UOR when needed however they and we all know we can't add armament to thin air so yes the UK ships are woefully under armed due in part to lack of or badly placed money but we do need the hulls first and full most. as for the under armed QE-11 Class I think swap out Phalanx for SeaRam and add 2 full fat 57mm turrets a mid ships should do the job

[donald_of_tokyo]

If "Under-armed" is the problem, what do we need assuming no increase in budget?

Among the "issue in risk of cut", I agree "5 T31e" (to save the hull number) is LESS important than,
(in my priority order)
- T45 diesel addition
- keeping SSM on all escorts
- adding data link to all Naval Wildcat
- keeping 1 LPD alive till replacement.
- adding SeaCeptor to QE CVs.
- 7th Astute (I'm afraid it is also on the table...)
(note here I am assuming, keeping 4 River B1/1.5s for EEZ (2) and naval school (2), and using 5 River B2 for forward-deployed "flag waving" tasks).

Something on the edge (similar to T31 in priority)
- ASROC on T26.
- CAMM on T45

Less than T31 is
- land attack missile on T26.
- upgrading 2 remaining T23GPs.

<personal impression>
1: May be I am missing many. But, you can see how "low" for me T31e is. But, I agree it is one idea (=assuming that real-war is not coming) and I am not the person to decide, that's why I am still commenting on T31e

2: Also I am personally surprised that "up arming T26" is not that high in my list... even though I wrote it myself. But, anyway very near priority the T31e program itself, but will be 1/10 cheaper as a project.

[abc123]

Never mind that, let's see this example: so, you have a car that breaks down oftenly, but you had say no problems with tires. So, you will put out of trunk a spare tyre and tool to change her, because last time you had battery problems?

So I give an example of the experience of, arguably, the best ASW naval force in existence at the time and you come up with a load of non-sensical piffle. Wow! Nice one

And thank you for your example, but all these things you are saying and advocating are just like the case with car and wishful thinking that you won't need a spare tire because you are better and smarter driver than Lewis Hamilton and nobody is as good like you.

I also had no problems with tires for years, but I still do have a small compressor and spare tire and tool to change her in my trunk, because one day, if/when I have problems with tires, I will be extremely glad to have these things there. Same thing for torpedos and ASROCs.

[abc123]

Is it just me but the RN appears to be far keener to simply get new hulls in the water that actually have ships with full combat capability, with most being kitted out so that that will operate well below their true potential. Now don't get me wrong this is better than no new platforms, but the RN seems to have evolved for FFBNW to leave space and hopefully we can afford to fit something later on. If you look at the T-45, T-26, T-31e submissions and the two Queen Elizabeths they all have austere weapon fits, with the T-45 being the best of the bunch. The T-26 is, as currently planned, woefully under armed for a vessel of their size. The T-31 is armed as a patrol vessel whilst being touted by the Government as a Frigate, and the Queen Elizabeth cannot defend itself against anything but the most simplistic of attacks. We will have two of the largest but by far the most poorly armed Carriers ever built. It is going to be compulsory to have two T-45s as escorts every time they go anywhere that isn't totally benign, with at least two T-26 acting as very large, expensive Towed array tractors. Whether the carriers will ever have enough F-35s on board to carry out both defensive and offensive sorties at the same time is debateable and as the Merlins are the principal delivery system for ASW, a minimum of eight are going to have to be carried in this role plus sufficient CROWSNEST to allow 24/7 coverage of the Carrier group. It isn't hard to imagine the new carriers having only slightly more offensive punch that the old CVLs wit the exception of LO capabilities of the F-35.

I still believe the Army should be prioritised when to comes to any new money but the RN is currently a paper Tiger, a bit like the Army having Challenger 2s but no ammunition for the main gun, only that for the co-axial MG. Again without additional new money to fill the foreseen shortfall and allow additional expenditure, the RN may have to choose the forge the T-31e if ot wants its other new combat platform properly fitted out with the systems they need to be effective. If not the T-26 and Queen Elizabeths are mainly useful for flag waving deployments, and people complain when the T-31 is mooted as such.

Exactly.

[Caribbean]

I still do have a small compressor and spare tire and tool to change her in my trunk

That's because tyres are actually useful and are proven to do their job, regardless of how rarely you encounter a circumstance where you need to change one. If you had a brand of tyre that needed changing every 10 km, would you continue buying them, or would you go and look for a brand that actually did the job?

Same thing for torpedos and ASROCs.

You still think that I'm arguing something that I'm not. I am fully in favour of ASROC, because you need something to cover the times when the helicopter isn't available. I'm also not saying "don't equip surface ships with torpedos". What I AM saying is that, given the RNs direct, practical experience with LWT, moving them to being an air-dropped weapon only is entirely reasonable. Ship-launched LWTs have, it seems, moved down the requirements list, as their utility appears to be limited.

[abc123]

Same thing for torpedos and ASROCs.

You still think that I'm arguing something that I'm not. I am fully in favour of ASROC, because you need something to cover the times when the helicopter isn't available. I'm also not saying "don't equip surface ships with torpedos". What I AM saying is that, given the RNs direct, practical experience with LWT, moving them to being an air-dropped weapon only is entirely reasonable. Ship-launched LWTs have, it seems, moved down the requirements list, as their utility appears to be limited.

OK, sorry if I misunderstood you.
Then we agree on ASROC.
And we don't agree on bolded part.
And yes, I'm aware that ship-launched torpedos aren't very useful, but if ASROC is not an option ( and obviously isn't because RN otherwise would have them allready ) torpedos are 100 x better than curses & angry fist waving in moments when helicopter is down.

[Tempest414]

If "Under-armed" is the problem, what do we need assuming no increase in budget?

Among the "issue in risk of cut", I agree "5 T31e" (to save the hull number) is LESS important than,
(in my priority order)
- T45 diesel addition
- keeping SSM on all escorts
- adding data link to all Naval Wildcat
- keeping 1 LPD alive till replacement.
- adding SeaCeptor to QE CVs.
- 7th Astute (I'm afraid it is also on the table...)
(note here I am assuming, keeping 4 River B1/1.5s for EEZ (2) and naval school (2), and using 5 River B2 for forward-deployed "flag waving" tasks).

Something on the edge (similar to T31 in priority)
- ASROC on T26.
- CAMM on T45

Less than T31 is
- land attack missile on T26.
- upgrading 2 remaining T23GPs.

<personal impression>
1: May be I am missing many. But, you can see how "low" for me T31e is. But, I agree it is one idea (=assuming that real-war is not coming) and I am not the person to decide, that's why I am still commenting on T31e

2: Also I am personally surprised that "up arming T26" is not that high in my list... even though I wrote it myself. But, anyway very near priority the T31e program itself, but will be 1/10 cheaper as a project.

What we need is something to trigger a UOR for escorts to carry proper armament

[ArmChairCivvy]

Ship-launched LWTs have, it seems, moved down the requirements list, as their utility appears to be limited.

We could buy some anti-torpedo torps from Germany, though?

[Repulse]

If "Under-armed" is the problem, what do we need assuming no increase in budget

@Donald-san, whilst I hope and an increase in defence spending, and I disagree with Lord Jim that it should be focused on the Army, I think it is still prudent to think about what if the net effect is we can afford only what was planned.

As we’ve gone round in circles many times on this blog, the T31e will neither be a true warship nor an OPV. It’s real value as someone pointed out earlier in this thread is to get a second ship builder in the market able to build semi complex warships to break BAE dominance and improve UK exports. I’d also argue that a cheap ASW sloop that could be built in multiple locations, cheaply and quickly across the U.K. is a strategic must. Whilst I’d put most items on your list higher than this (with the exception of SeaCeptor on the CVFs) I’d still want to evolve the River class further towards this but aiming to keep the cost much lower towards the current River cost to replace the River B1s.

[Caribbean]

and obviously isn't because RN otherwise would have them allready

Well - the T23 has torpedos and neither Mk41 or deck space to mount an ASROC launcher and the T45 is, well, an AAW specialist. It has a hull-mounted sonar and it's helicopter can carry Stingray, but that's about it. It primarily relies on SSTD decoys etc for it's "ASW" capabilities. Hopefully T26 will get ASROC, as T31 is not being thought of as an ASW specialist (having Mk41s would give it a future option, though) in this iteration, at least.

We could buy some anti-torpedo torps from Germany, though?

Yes, that would seem an interesting approach, where the relatively short range of the ATT is not a disadvantage (the enemy's torpedo is unlikely to try to run away, after all). Not just Germany - isn't that what the USN variant of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defence system does as well. Could it become an add-on to the UK system once fully developed - they are both produced by Ultra Electronics? There is also the prospect of "re-using" multi-static sonobuoys as ships move through a previously laid ASW field to assist in torpedo detection, plus the idea of deploying countermeasures, at a distance from the fleet, from helicopters/ drones to confuse enemy targetting

[donald_of_tokyo]

What we need is something to trigger a UOR for escorts to carry proper armament

Completely disagree. If we use it now, in case of real need there will be no money. Equipment cost must be well programmed, well assigned and well balanced. Also, you need maintenance cost in long-term, which is equivalent to purchase cost. If you say "use UOR", then just delete the budget named "UOR" and shift that cost to Navy. And if something "urgent" happened, ask for the congress to admit further budget to be allocated within a few days or weeks. But I think UOR is UOR.

It’s real value ... is to get a second ship builder in the market able to build semi complex warships to break BAE dominance and improve UK exports.

No other European nation is successful in avoiding dominance by one ship-yard for naval vessel. Also, semi-complex = pimped-up OPV is non-related to building real escorts. Thus, (for me) T31e can do nothing to break the monopoly.

If we need a "Pimped-up OPV" for export, already Babcock does it. I do not know why Camel Laired or A&P is coming in (*). There is no money to support them all. What if Babcock lose the contract? MHC? Then, MOD needs to support 3 ship builders (BAES, Babcock, CL), not 2 ? From where such money comes?

*: Babcock inviting A&P is (I think) simply because T31e build is in such an hurry. 1 hull per year for 5 hulls, and no order later on. They can never invest anything on such a sudden rise-and-fall of income, and will just "rent" resources from somewhere else. Again, T31e is not changing anything on BAES monopoly...

I think this is very clear, but I am missing something? ....

[Tempest414]

My comment on UOR was quip and not a statement however what the RN needs first and full most is Hulls we would of all liked to have seen 13 type 26's but it is not going to happen type 31 is going to happen and we have to get use to it and make the best of it. This can be an opportunity if done right using the type 31 program as test and then add to the design to make a more war capable type 31++ batch 2

[Poiuytrewq]

Repulse,

I agree with the additional Basic ASW vessels but rather than a sloop my preferred option would be to explore the possibility of a specialised ASW vessel based on a shortened Type 26 hull without the very expensive mission bay, uneccessary chinook capable flight deck, reduced VLS and crew numbers. If these basic Type 26 ASW vessels could be built for £400m to £500m they would be very good value and might even be appealing to the export market.

Donald,

I disagree, I think that a consortium of UK shipyards could ease the monopoly of BAE complex shipbuilding for RN. In my opinion with the ongoing issue of Scottish Independence which could be potentially just one more referendum away, the reintroduction of complex shipbuilding skills to other UK yards would seem to be a wise move.

I take your point that a 5 hull order will not sustain a number of yards with a wide geographical spread across the UK long term nor would it lead to wholesale investment in these yards to increase efficiency and reduce build costs. In my opinion the National Shipbuilding Strategy is not just about 5 Type 31e hulls but is much wider aspiration for long term sustainable ship building in the UK.

If the Type 31e turns out to be a blue water patrol vessel with a hanger, a bit like what the River Batch 2 should have been it would seem like the ideal platform for the future MHC vessel. If the MHC order is 10 to 15 hulls along with the Type 31e order of at least 5 hulls, this would seem like a pretty long term proposition for a UK ship yard consortium. Add this to the 3 FSS vessels, possible replacements for Ocean, Agrus and Diligence leading on to the Bay, Albion and Type 45 replacements, things could be pretty bright for UK Naval shipbuilding if HMG chose to support it regardless of the export market.

[Caribbean]

Completely disagree. If we use it now, in case of real need there will be no money.

I may be wrong, but, if needed, the forces can call on the UK Contingency Fund, which, inter alia, provides funding " in anticipation of Parliamentary provision for those services becoming available". Use of this facility was actually proposed recently to cover the "black hole" in MOD financing in the short term. The outbreak of a war sufficient to require the immediate acquisition of new weapons systems would fall into that category (and would undoubtedly result in an emergency budget, authorising additional expenditure). You are making the mistake of thinking that budgets cannot be changed within a financial year - they can, but changes are only made if there is good reason. The contingency fund was c. £4b in 2014, so probably closer to £4.5b today. There are also alternative financing mechanisms, such as War Bonds and as a first and last resort (i.e. during the initial emergency and then later, should finance become an issue in the long-term) there is also the "magic money tree" i.e. the creation of money via quantitative easing and other mechanisms.

No other European nation is successful in avoiding dominance by one ship-yard for naval vessel.

So what? Why does the UK have to adopt the same models as other European nations? The UK is perfectly capable of innovating, both in business and in technological terms and has spent much of its history doing precisely that very successfully. How many naval yards does Japan operate? Is it four building surface ships and three building submarines? It's something like that. The UK isn't trying to imitate that - it's doing its own thing and making use of capacity within its commercial shipbuilding sector to build minor warships. In the process, it's insuring itself against the possibility of Scottish Independence becoming a reality, building warship construction skills within the commercial sector and handling a short-term shortfall in escorts. At the end of the initial five-ship build, we will have a debugged design, suitable for all future minor warship production and the yards involved will simply continue with their normal production, only with a bit more experience in naval construction. We will still have BAE to provide the specialist, top-end yards. If Scottish Independence happens, then a lot of BAE staff will have to move south of the border in search of work in rUK yards - the skills won't be lost.

Despite what is often said about "the decline of British Industry", Britain is still the 7th largest manufacturer in the world and manufacturing output in terms of both production and value has steadily increased since 1945 - manufacturing has a smaller share of the UKs GDP only because the service industries have grown so much faster.

If we need a "Pimped-up OPV" for export, already Babcock does it.

So why isn't Babcocks doing it, then. Oh, maybe because the T31 ISN'T a "pimped OPV" - it's something different.

[Lord Jim]

With this thread as well as in many other different categories plenty of good ideas have surfaced and been discussed. However NONE are going to happen until the Treasury loosens its purse strings as current funding allow the MoD to barely tread water. Swapping five T-26 for five T-31e, covering the whole situation with layers of spin, will hurt the Royal Navy. Managing complex weapons programmes cannot be done by moving numbers between columns on a spreadsheet. Yes the MoD were overly optimistic on any possible inflation that might impact the 10 year equipment plan and the speed and certainty of the savings, sorry efficiencies they could make, but the MoD like all departments are trying to operate with budgets so taught that the slightest sneeze and it all goes to pot.

As I said earlier I would prefer to see the idea of the T-31e canned and the money invested in properly kitting out the T-26 and in fact the T-45 also. Ok The escort fleet drops to 14, but that is enough to protect the Carriers and have one available in UK waters. It also eases the manning issues with five less hull to deal with. With the T-26 programme stretching into the early 2030s as it is, there is a considerable period to time for things to change. BAe will retain its monopoly during this time, but it should be made clear that the next escort class will be put out to tender to overseas yards. Ideally the next class will use a common hull, initially to produce a ASW platform followed by a successor to the T-45. The idea of GP platforms has always seemed to be a way of covering the fact that we have purchased hulls FFBNW but never got round to actually buy the kit to be fitted.

I know this is kicking the numbers problem fifteen plus years down the line but we have other defence priorities that unless the Government changes our foreign policy are going to cost lives if things get hot. Lets face it both the RN and RAF have dome quite well these past couple of decades with new warships and planes, with more still in the works and to balanced programmes. Sure numbers are down but quality has gone up, but units can still not be in two places at once, hence the change in policy caveat. I know this is a Navy thread but the Army needs to replace almost its entire AFV fleet and what is currently on order is way short of what is desperately needs both in numbers and capability. The RAF and RN can operate in peer to peer operations with what is in service and planned near term, the Army cannot. So as far as the RN is concerned the following should happen;

1. Cancel the T-31e programme.
2. Fully kit out the planned T-26, T-45 and CVF maximising their capability and effectiveness.
3. Remove responsibility CASD replacement from the Defence Budget, with funding provided by other means, also removing it from the calculations for the percentage of GDP spent on defence.

Point three in important as the Treasury will do everything it can to remove as much funding from the MoD and transfer it to the separate CASD replacement programme. However As it should be removed also from the GDP calculations, as CASD is NOT part of Defence, removing any funding would seriously reduce the percentage spent over a given timeframe. Given the importance teh Government place on emphasising that the UK does spend the NATO minimum on defence this might tie the hands of the Treasury.

In a nutshell, to be effective the Royal Navy eventually needs both capability and capacity to be effective at a level we aspire to. You can get by with the former at the expense of the latter but not the other way around.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Caribbean-san. Thanks for budget info. But it is not my point. RN equipment needs continuous input (to the main RN budget), not a short time stop gap (from UOR).

No other European nation is successful in avoiding dominance by one ship-yard for naval vessel.

So what? Why does the UK have to adopt the same models as other European nations?

Simply because UK is not paying that much in naval ship building. Japan still maintains ~50 escort fleets. In place, UK is spending huge money on SSBN, and SSN, and large CV.

The UK isn't trying to imitate that - it's doing its own thing and making use of capacity within its commercial shipbuilding sector to build minor warships.

French and Germany, and what is more Italy has much much more strong commercial shipbuilding sectors. Even Dutch does. But, to be competitive, they have only 1 naval ship builder. You are saying sum of many small yards are more competitive than a big company. If yes, all ship builders around the world must have been separated down to thousands of small yards. But, no.

Sorry, I do not understand your point. There is no way a team of small ship yards can be efficient as one large ship yard.

If Scottish Independence happens, then a lot of BAE staff will have to move south of the border in search of work in rUK yards - the skills won't be lost.

Agreed.

Despite what is often said about "the decline of British Industry", Britain is still the 7th largest manufacturer in the world ...

Yes UK is good at the fields they are investing. But it does not include ship building.

My whole point is, it looks like going again the "too optimistic view point", T45, T26, F35, typhoon, FRES, all are, at start, brilliant program promising for success, getting 1st rate equipments very cheap. I believe they were 1st-rate, but the cost has increased a lot lot more. And this is why RN now has only 6 T45 and 13 T23.

[Jake1992]

The thing I repeatedly see on this thread is the blame being passed, blaming the mod for not keeping control over project budget as we see above over the T45. Now yes the mod not keeping control over these budget holds some of the blame but we keep over looking the main cause and that is simply HMG consistently cutting the budget.

If we got back the when the T45 project started over the budget was around 3% of GDP with CASD funded seperately, if we look at the budget by the same metric today it's barly 1.6-1.7% of GDP.
If the budget wasn't cut over and over we wouldn't be looking at a £36bn a year budget but closer to a £52bn a year budget.

Now would we have seen the same drop in numbers if it wasn't for such large cuts ( nearly 50% cut over 20 years ) no we wouldn't of

The simple thing is until HMG take deffence seriously then the budget problem will only get worse no matter how the mod handle each projects budgets

[Repulse]

Whilst I’d love the DD/FF fleet to head back towards 30+, without more defence cash or a real prioritisation of spending away from other services it’s never going to happen. As such, I’m not suggesting that another shipbuilder builds complex warships in parallel to BAE (as until there is more than 20 there is no need), but I do want a plan B if Scotland goes and also an alternative to BAE for “complex” minor warships.

[Repulse]

In WW1, the RN revived the term Sloop for small warships not intended for fleet deployments. This was primarily for Convoy escorts or Minesweepers.

Using the term Sloop for me nicely sums up what the RN really needs outside of the war fighting T45/T26s rather than Light Frigate (which suggests it should be part of fleet actions) or OPV (which suggests a low end constabulary role).

A T31e Sloop covering all aspects of the historical MHPC concept plus a ASW escort is what should be focused on. The price should be @£100-150mn each, built in numbers.

14 T45/T26s are just about enough to cover 2 global CSGs, but nothing else. If the UK has bigger ambitions, then the RN needs more money.