Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Roders96 wrote:
SW1 wrote:How do you square that calculation if the issue is in 2020 rather than 2030 when those changes will have taken place.
The carrier's will be knocking about for 50 years. They're big ticket items and different to the rest. If one goes into mothballs it'll never come out. Better to have a few escorts in extended readiness for 10 years than CdG in perpetuity.

Both carriers being active creates demand for the escorts to come out of mothballs, tempest to be designed carrier capable. The same is not true in reverse.
SW1 wrote:As has been said many times we only have aircraft for a single carrier air group and a small one at that.
Yes we don't currently have the aircraft for both carriers, but in the short term we've got surge from USMC, medium term tempest. Drones to come too. Even if we don't immediately have the aircraft for both of them, for the reason stated above, it is irrational not to keep both active.
Should this be moved?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do not share to optimistic growing UK defense, sometimes discussed here, and this article looks more reflecting the real situation.
A welcome sense of perspective.
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... fence.html

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Roders96 wrote:
SW1 wrote:How do you square that calculation if the issue is in 2020 rather than 2030 when those changes will have taken place.
The carrier's will be knocking about for 50 years. They're big ticket items and different to the rest. If one goes into mothballs it'll never come out. Better to have a few escorts in extended readiness for 10 years than CdG in perpetuity.

Both carriers being active creates demand for the escorts to come out of mothballs, tempest to be designed carrier capable. The same is not true in reverse.
SW1 wrote:As has been said many times we only have aircraft for a single carrier air group and a small one at that.
Yes we don't currently have the aircraft for both carriers, but in the short term we've got surge from USMC, medium term tempest. Drones to come too. Even if we don't immediately have the aircraft for both of them, for the reason stated above, it is irrational not to keep both active.
If you mothball escorts your not getting them back either. Both carriers were originally never intended to be in service together. One was to replace the other when in refit. That change in direction by the Cameron government has caused the issue today.

One hopes the Marine corp are being asw helicopters with them because the RN does not have anywhere close to the number required to support 2 carriers and 8 asw frigates

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do not share to optimistic growing UK defense, sometimes discussed here, and this article looks more reflecting the real situation.
A welcome sense of perspective.
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... fence.html
Yes.

And, Sir Humphrey also mentions anything can happen, as the SDSR2020 will start very soon. But, still there is no need for panic.

My point is, I cannot be optimistic ;
- As he states, NAO says there is a black hole of as large as 15B GBP in 10 years budget.
- As official reports says (*1), Army FTTTS is in short of 10.4% of 82000 required, Navy 5.4% short of 30450 required, and RAF short of 6.3% of 31750.

# For example, personally, I can see zero chance for Army to avoid man-power cuts, although just adjusting its "requirements" near to the actual number. But they will "fight", so Navy needs to "defend", I'm afraid.

Combining these two, it means even with this 12,000 shortage of man-power (8.4% of 144,200 required) with their salary not payed (as much as 700-900M GBP per year = 7-8B GBP in 10 years, I guess), still UK military is in short of 15B GBP money in 10 years. And, depending on the election, the current spending level may change. Increase or decrease, but highly possible is to keep "2% GDP", I'm afraid.

Again, there is no need to panic. Also, pushing for more is not that bad. But, thinking of and defending the "core" of the RN will be very important. (Personally, in case of RN escorts, I think core is to secure 5 more T26, much more than "more T31" or "improve T31".)

*1: October1 issue of "UK Armed Forces Quarterly Service Personnel Statistics"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 19_SPS.pdf

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

If we can push though what is coming in the pipe line i.e 8 x type 26 and 5 x type 31 we should be alright. If we say have two carrier groups made of

1 x carrier , 1 x type 45 , 2 x type 23/26 , 2 x NATO escorts , 1 x Tide 1 x SSS

this would mean 6 tier 1 escorts would be needed leaving 8 tier 1 and 5 tier 2 escorts which could be split like so

TAPS = 2 x type 23/26
FRE = 2 x type 31
SNMG-1/2 = 3 x tier 1 escorts
EoS = 3 x type 31
AP-N/S = 3 x tier 1 escorts

As for Carrier Air-wings we should look for something like 10 x F-35 , 8 x Merlin ASW , 3 x Crowsnest , 3 x Wildcat ( on the escorts ) plus 10 x USMC F-35 and 4 x USMC MV-22

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Tempest414 wrote:If we can push though what is coming in the pipe line i.e 8 x type 26 and 5 x type 31 we should be alright. If we say have two carrier groups made of

1 x carrier , 1 x type 45 , 2 x type 23/26 , 2 x NATO escorts , 1 x Tide 1 x SSS

this would mean 6 tier 1 escorts would be needed leaving 8 tier 1 and 5 tier 2 escorts which could be split like so

TAPS = 2 x type 23/26
FRE = 2 x type 31
SNMG-1/2 = 3 x tier 1 escorts
EoS = 3 x type 31
AP-N/S = 3 x tier 1 escorts

As for Carrier Air-wings we should look for something like 10 x F-35 , 8 x Merlin ASW , 3 x Crowsnest , 3 x Wildcat ( on the escorts ) plus 10 x USMC F-35 and 4 x USMC MV-22
I agree but the T45s are completely under utilised outside of a CSG, their main role is an AAW umbrella and they are good at it. Each CSG should have 2.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7248
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Just a couple of comments:

The Times does not support Boris or the Tories, it is now a liberal mouthpiece that, like every other newspaper, reports and invents, stories to discredit those it does not like. Today's article is just that, an attempt to discredit Boris during an election campaign. It is bullshit and should be ignored.

Sir Humphrey is a prize prat whose sole purpose is to deify the civil service. Most of what he writes is also bullshit and should be ignored.

If both UK carriers were deployed together, they would undoubtedly be in one CVG (not two) and the numbers of helicopters & escorts debated here need to reflect that.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: Today's article is just that, an attempt to discredit Boris during an election campaign. It is bullshit and should be ignored.
Despite not agreeing with the policies [and that would be on another thread] that Boris id trying to push trough, I would think that the description of what is happening is correct
- indeed, there is a smack of a 'reprint' from 2017, when, indeed,there was such a discussion ongoing and the articles were researched/ sourced
Ron5 wrote: would undoubtedly be in one CVG (not two) and the numbers of helicopters & escorts debated here need to reflect that.
That is true, too
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/defenc ... ugh-ships/

Read this earlier, it talks alot about MCMV being automated. Frees up another 500 crew.

5 extra T31s or something else guys? What is realistic?

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Ron5 wrote:Just a couple of comments:



If both UK carriers were deployed together, they would undoubtedly be in one CVG (not two) and the numbers of helicopters & escorts debated here need to reflect that.
I think that would be awesome to see !!! maybe when we have more planes / hellicopters along with T45/23 ( & a T26/31 :D ) available in the late 2020's as a show of what can be done if the crap hits the fan, maybe one as a LPH & the other as the originally intended role 36 x F35 + crowsnest :D :D :D during a short term massive NATO exercise maybe???

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

I think people need to appreciate that there is a rather heated election going on in the UK.

Taking an article like that seriously is not a good idea, much less starting to draw conclusions from speculation that is probably false.

Really not a fan of the new SoS for Defence, Bradshaw but he has categorically and strongly denied the claims both directly to Lucy Fisher (the writer) and even publically during the Tory manifesto launch today. If there were even a grain of truth in the story, he would not risk lying in front of nearly every political editor in Britain.

As a defence journalist Fisher is a faint shadow of her predecessor Deborah Haynes and has neither her high-placed sources or sound judgment.

The carriers have far too much political capital, both at home and with with our allies, wrapped up in them to sell and were too expensive to sit around doing nothing. They do however make eye-catching headlines for lazy pundits and some of the more reactionary types in the blogosphere.

There is plenty of low-hanging fruit ahead of them on the chopping block...

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

None of the three Services have that much "Low hanging fruit" left to absorb any needed economies to balance thing with regards to the existing budgetary short fall. The recent cash injection just covered things like currency fluctuations etc. and has probably only slowed any increase in the short fall. AS has been point out the Comprehensive Spending Review due after the Election is going to be critical for the MoD for without a five year uplift in defence spending some key programmes are bound to suffer. There are no easy option left.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7248
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Roders96 wrote:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/defenc ... ugh-ships/

Read this earlier, it talks alot about MCMV being automated. Frees up another 500 crew.

5 extra T31s or something else guys? What is realistic?
I thought this article was pretty crappy. Obviously written by someone with a very low level understanding of naval matters. Quoting idiot Childs didn't help or dragging up decade old quotes from an army guy that didn't like carriers. Quelle surprise.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I wonder how many years away (in RN escorts, especially) we are from the debate ( or the forced choice) between fixed vs. controllable pitch propellers going away, as
"The advantage of shape adaptability is probably the most widely researched area in composite propellers over the past decade.

Shape adaptability refers to the capability of composites to be optimised to deform, without the involvement of external mechanisms such as in controllable pitch propellers, based on the flow conditions and rotational speed in order to achieve a higher efficiency, compared to alloy propellers, throughout its operating domain. This is achieved through optimising the layup patterns and layup materials of the composite, such that the propeller has an optimum bend-twist coupling performance. Bend-twist coupling refers to the special characteristic of layered composites where out of plane bending moments cause twisting moments in a composite structure."

The capability of self-varying pitch (shape adaptable) - based on "out of plane bending moments caused by the incoming flow" has the following benefits listed (some deriving from the change of materials, from the typical Nickel Aluminium Bronze (NAB) alloys or Manganese Nickel Aluminium Bronze (MAB) alloys to composites):
" light weight,
reduced corrosion,
reduced noise generation,
no magnetic signature"
of which I find the noise aspect - from the angle of ASW 'work' - the most interesting.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Some interesting background here.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe ... ion-shift/

An LSG widely distributed across the region and regularly operating in both the Indian Ocean and the west coast of Africa would make a big difference. A T31 forward based somewhere in the region might also be an option.

Another clear illustration that cuts have consequences and foreign aid can take many forms.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Some interesting background here.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe ... ion-shift/

An LSG widely distributed across the region and regularly operating in both the Indian Ocean and the west coast of Africa would make a big difference. A T31 forward based somewhere in the region might also be an option.

Another clear illustration that cuts have consequences and foreign aid can take many forms.
Or a lack of clear priorities more like. As mentioned previously the UKs strategic priority should be the Altantic not wasting time in the Middle East or Far East. The vast vast majority of our food and energy requirements originate from countries around the Atlantic. We are an Atlantic power not a pacific one we seem to have forgotten that.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Looks like the rescue tug has become available to other aging (major) surface units as the carrier has become inactive " ships participating (a Russian Slava-class cruiser & rescue tug)"
- there could not be a better diversion (a lesser threat) of Russia's military resources than starting to rebuild their blue-water navy, RE "for all the talk of Russia as a declining power"

China's Djibouti facility is mentioned; next door to "Camp America". They do have a tendency to rub shoulders:
"The building material distribution centre is part of the 10 projects planned by Chinese companies in Duqm and is coming up within the China Oman Industrial Park, which has a huge area of 11.72 square kilometres."
- but also do seem to possess the ability to operate 'under the radar' as the bases in Tanzania and Eritrea do not get a mention (the Seychelles said 'no' and the fishing expedition for the old Soviet facility on Socotra got stopped by the UAE stepping in for the S. of Yemen)

Though Diego is not much of a naval base, it is still a positive development to have basing on both sides of the Hormuz (Bahrain extended and Duqm for larger scale repairs)

Ahh, SW1 comment just appeared and I agree. But such a priority does not preclude presence in the broader Indian Ocean region... whereas the Pacific might be a stretch.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:But such a priority does not preclude presence in the broader Indian Ocean region... whereas the Pacific might be a stretch.
I’d doesnt but say having 2 river batch 2 vessels and perhaps a wave tanker operating in south Atlantic may allow more defence engagement with African and South American countries with vessels that are not overly complex as well as occasion transits around both capes with Maritime security interests as well.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:But such a priority does not preclude presence in the broader Indian Ocean region... whereas the Pacific might be a stretch.
I’d doesnt but say having 2 river batch 2 vessels and perhaps a wave tanker operating in south Atlantic may allow more defence engagement with African and South American countries with vessels that are not overly complex as well as occasion transits around both capes with Maritime security interests as well.
The truth is naval wise we have traditionally been a globally interested and globally involved nation, we only became so concentrated on the N.A due to the Cold War and the threat the then soviet navy posed to us. It seems with the threat all but gone and new threats to global trade and global norms rising in the Far East to stay relevant and do our part we are having to look global again.
The problem is the current political set up in the UK you have a far left operation that openly dislikes military expenditure but also are putting forward mass spending at home. This is having 2 effects on the Tory party, 1 that it’s not putting any pressure on them to take defence seriously, 2 it’s pushing them to put spending else where to not see people seeing them as not caring when compared to Lab.


Simple put global movement is putting pressure on us to be active globally to stay relevant but pressure at home are taking attention and money away from this so we are stuck in a stupid position.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jake1992 wrote:It seems with the threat all but gone and new threats to global trade and global norms rising in the Far East to stay relevant and do our part we are having to look global again.
1 SL listed N. Atlantic as n:o 1 prio quite recently
- you quite rightly listed the dilemma of governing parties
- the dilemma that the military faces and the SecDef must simplify, as the political interface, for the rest of the Gvmnt is how to prioritise likely threats with lower impacts vs. preparing for threats of lesser likelihood, but with ' existential' impact
... N. Atlantic comes on top, regardless, and only from there on will one then start to 'finesse'
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:It seems with the threat all but gone and new threats to global trade and global norms rising in the Far East to stay relevant and do our part we are having to look global again.
1 SL listed N. Atlantic as n:o 1 prio quite recently
- you quite rightly listed the dilemma of governing parties
- the dilemma that the military faces and the SecDef must simplify, as the political interface, for the rest of the Gvmnt is how to prioritise likely threats with lower impacts vs. preparing for threats of lesser likelihood, but with ' existential' impact
... N. Atlantic comes on top, regardless, and only from there on will one then start to 'finesse'
Your own back garden is always going to be the number 1 priority I was simply pointing out why in recent history it pretty much became our sole focus, where more traditionally we’ve been much more global looking.

We’re always going to put the N.A first but with how global events are shaping up we once again need to put more than a small force further afield. This seems to of been recognised by HMG but due to either unwillingness or the political landscape at home the funding hasn’t been put there to match it.

IMO there are 3 potential changes starting to coming in to play that require more funding simply to keep our own interest protected.
1 - a resurgent Russia, this is going to require more ASW in the N.A and North Sea along with improving our land forces.
2 - the Middle East not only doesn’t seem to being getting more stable but infact getting worse, this is going to require maintain a reasonable land presence there along with increased naval an amphibious presence.
3 - a rising and belligerent China, this is a threat to vital trade along with very close allies, we’ll need a much gear naval presence and air presence whether that be individually ie CSG or as part of working with allies.

It’d be easy to say leave China to the US, leave land force in regard to Russia to continental Europe but the fact of the matter is they can’t do it all on there own and by saying that we diminish our own standing in the world to no more than a regional power at best.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I really dislike the idea of the UK forward deploying military assets without the military having the mass to do so effectively. Take the Royal Navy. With current aspirations we are going to have one or two tripwire groups forward deployed that will rely on the Carrier Strike Group coming to their rescue if the balloon goes up, assuming the Carrier is not already engaged elsewhere. This is a bit like the Victorian idea of having a garrison left hanging and sending a Army from the UK initially to relieve it be usually to take revenge for the formers demise. If we are going to start spreading out limited naval assets around the world we simple need more assets, otherwise these forces are not strong enough to be effective and relying on local allies is not a good foundation.

Until additional resources are made available, we should concentrate on the North Atlantic and ensuring we have the assets in place to meet out existing commitments effectively. Yes do a global deployment once every five years possibly, but only if other NATO assets can cover the shortfall due to our absence. So if we want to have the global presence we have decades ago we need the resources we had decades ago.


Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:I really dislike the idea of the UK forward deploying military assets without the military having the mass to do so effectively. Take the Royal Navy. With current aspirations we are going to have one or two tripwire groups forward deployed that will rely on the Carrier Strike Group coming to their rescue if the balloon goes up, assuming the Carrier is not already engaged elsewhere. This is a bit like the Victorian idea of having a garrison left hanging and sending a Army from the UK initially to relieve it be usually to take revenge for the formers demise. If we are going to start spreading out limited naval assets around the world we simple need more assets, otherwise these forces are not strong enough to be effective and relying on local allies is not a good foundation.

Until additional resources are made available, we should concentrate on the North Atlantic and ensuring we have the assets in place to meet out existing commitments effectively. Yes do a global deployment once every five years possibly, but only if other NATO assets can cover the shortfall due to our absence. So if we want to have the global presence we have decades ago we need the resources we had decades ago.
This is the problem HMGs ambition and shifting global affairs determine we need to be globally deployed for our own interests but also to stay relevant in the coming decades, the issue is as you’ve pointed out we currently don’t have the resources to do so.

We have two choices realise the world is once again heading toward more of a Cold War set up and spend accordingly or scale back our ambitions accept being no more than a regional influence and be at the whim of global affairs.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:2 - the Middle East not only doesn’t seem to being getting more stable but infact getting worse, this is going to require maintain a reasonable land presence there along with increased naval an amphibious presence.
3 - a rising and belligerent China, this is a threat to vital trade along with very close allies, we’ll need a much gear naval presence and air presence whether that be individually ie CSG or as part of working with allies.
The Middle East is more a concern for China than us. Going fwd the Middle East will require less UK engagement not more. Beyond Contributing to upholding international norms of freedom of movement the Mid East is of diminishing strategic importance for the UK.

The vital trade is with China they don’t need military means to disrupt it. Yes the are asserting themselves and ensuring we support allies is important but it will be more through diplomatic and intelligence means than militarily ones we are very much a junior partner in that part of the world .

Post Reply