Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

Repulse wrote:
However, as the RAF is not on board anyway, any purchase of F35Bs beyond 48 will be either scrapped or capped to another squadron. We’ve seen already recently the Navy pushing the CVFs as UAV carriers.

RAF not on board? Any real evidence of this? And which UAVs would the RN be suggesting?

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Tempest414 wrote:
NickC wrote:Zero ASW defense or attack capability?
I was talking weapons fit and not systems however we can let the Danish navy fit and test the TAS to their IH class this year and if it works fit it to type 31 with torpedos delivered by Helo
I was thinking weapons as well, IH class ASW weapons - fitted with the MU90 LWT's fired from two twin tube launchers, sensor Atlas Elecktronik ASO-94 HMS. RN appear the exception in not fitting ship launched LWT's on T26 eg T23, Australian Hobarts, Hunter and USN Burkes etc

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

jedibeeftrix wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:As to counter fast-boat swarm/UAV/add CAMM for this/that, 40 mm 3P looks better than 30 mm gun. Why are you trying to take on (likely AShM armed) boat swarms and (munitions laden) drone-swarms with a River? That's not its job. They are fishery protection, border watch, and general piracy/drugs work at most.
No. I mean 40 mm 3P fleet wide, to replace ALL 30 mm guns. Only in this case, "keeping a 30 mm gun ONLY FOR OPVs" will be a logistic nightmare, and then River B2 OPVs will carry 40 mm 3P. This is my point.
To build on this point:

When we have events like the seizure by the iranian's, and we all looked at what assets we had in the gulf to protect shipping, it quickly became apparent the limits of what a single T23GP frigate could do to protect even its own convoy tailing back over 15miles.

Looking to the future it is hard to imagine that the answer is to permanently deploy two T31GP frigates, but perhaps a combination of a T31GP and RB2+(with 40mm 3P) could usefully top-n-tail a fifteen mile convoy, and react to a contingency elsewhere en-route without abandoning the primary task entirely.

So no need to CAMM on River, but could 40mm 3P add useful capability?
For me if the B2 Rivers had a 40mm with 3P rounds plus 2 x Aselsan mounts fitted with GAU-19 and 4 LMM they could work under the CAMM umbrella of a frigate working as part of a convoy . As has been said the B2 Rivers may end up back doing work in UK home waters but I think we will always see them on over seas deployments as needed

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I actually think a River B2 should be always be used as a fleet ready escort as not escalate any situation (maybe a flyby if things do get hotter) but just to say we have an eye on you! and hopefully save out tier 1 ships for oversea operations - or do we do that most of the time?

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 would like to see the B2 Rivers with a more effective main gun such as the BAe 40mm to possibly be fitted to the T-31. Have this backed by one or more stabilised mount for Starstreak/LMM, trials of which have already been carried out a while back, and that should be sufficient for a "Tanker" escort, especially if a Wildcat with Martlet and Sea Venom is in the area. Having a "Mothership", with three or four CB-90 type fast response craft at or near a choke point would be useful as well, maybe called like a LSS.

I read a book a while back called "Seafighter", by James Cobb (ISBN 0 7472 6149 0) about a USN deployment of West Africa to deal with Pirates and instigate a UN authorised maritime blockade. In it the USN has a mobile floating base and a squadron of armoured Hovercraft, armed with autocannon, Hellfire and stinger missiles and with an operating speed of over 40knts. The base also had a SF/Marine contingent and the Hovercraft were able to carry a squad or these could be carried by one or more of the Helicopters stationed on the mobile base. This force was operating in the littoral area supported by Frigates and Destroyers further out.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Dahedd wrote:RAF not on board? Any real evidence of this? And which UAVs would the RN be suggesting?
Nothing concrete apart from a unsubtle lobbying through the press to go for the F35A. Also, with Saudi Arabia pausing its Tiffies purchase and the need to keep skills ahead of Tempest, then I can see easily the argument for a small tranche 4 typhoon order.

In terms of UAVs the 1SL has suggest PoW becomes an experiment platform for (new) larger UAVs.

https://www.janes.com/article/94037/fir ... e-of-wales
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: I can see easily the argument for a small tranche 4 typhoon order
The German order will give a similar effect, even though assembly will be on their own line
- will be interesting to see if they can be tempted to include any subsystems that Tempest (the prgrm) is working on

But, yes, which larger UAVs?
- the US tanker is effectively a Hornet derivative (Hornets for us went out of favour a long time ago)
- there is nothing around that could be trialed for strike, and
- for surveillance the most intriguing option is the one with vertical take-off so carriers would not be the only option... and even if they are to be stocked/ maintained on a carrier, another ship could recover the UAV and refuel it for a 'return trip' perhaps over a 1000 mile distance
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Gabriele wrote:
Drumbeat is a horrendous way to make ships though. All it means is you get less ships, for more cost, over a longer period. It completely erases the efficiency gained from subsequent builds.
That is the British drumbeat. Drumbeat makes perfect sense, if you set it to a timeline that makes sense.
Utter rubbish. Every manufacturing organization in the world strives for faster and faster build times because that increases efficiency, saves money, increases profits. If it's for a government contract, it saves the taxpayer money.

"Makes sense" my ass.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Repulse wrote: I can see easily the argument for a small tranche 4 typhoon order
The German order will give a similar effect, even though assembly will be on their own line
- will be interesting to see if they can be tempted to include any subsystems that Tempest (the prgrm) is working on

But, yes, which larger UAVs?
- the US tanker is effectively a Hornet derivative (Hornets for us went out of favour a long time ago)
- there is nothing around that could be trialed for strike, and
- for surveillance the most intriguing option is the one with vertical take-off so carriers would not be the only option... and even if they are to be stocked/ maintained on a carrier, another ship could recover the UAV and refuel it for a 'return trip' perhaps over a 1000 mile distance
Could they be looking towards something like the planned attack variant of the V-247 ?

Similar in size to a merlin so plenty large. The tilt rotar design is meant to be an advancement over the V-22 ( less maintenance heavy )
It’s looking to offer a capacity that’s a cross between a reaper and an apache that can operate off a wasp class LHD.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Drumbeat is a horrendous way to make ships though. All it means is you get less ships, for more cost, over a longer period. It completely erases the efficiency gained from subsequent builds.
That is the British drumbeat. Drumbeat makes perfect sense, if you set it to a timeline that makes sense.
Utter rubbish. Every manufacturing organization in the world strives for faster and faster build times because that increases efficiency, saves money, increases profits. If it's for a government contract, it saves the taxpayer money.
"Makes sense" my ass.
Sorry Ron5-san, I disagree. Yes, you can build 8 T26 in 8 years. And then, the shipyard will be closed, because T45 replacement is yet to come. Technology lost, infrastructure lost, man-power lost.

Then, when a time come for T45 replacement, may be UK will be forced to order it to France, or pay a lot (start from educating the man-power, standing-up the infrastructure, building-up a modern technology) and only then built the escort. But, it will never be a high grade one, because it is a "baby" ship building industry. Malaysian shipyard trying to learn how to build modern warship with Gowind2500 ship will be in much better situation than those of UK shipyards if closed for 10 years (because of lack of investments).

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Ron5 wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Drumbeat is a horrendous way to make ships though. All it means is you get less ships, for more cost, over a longer period. It completely erases the efficiency gained from subsequent builds.
That is the British drumbeat. Drumbeat makes perfect sense, if you set it to a timeline that makes sense.
Utter rubbish. Every manufacturing organization in the world strives for faster and faster build times because that increases efficiency, saves money, increases profits. If it's for a government contract, it saves the taxpayer money.

"Makes sense" my ass.
There’s a few reasons the drum beat is there but none of them are to get the best value for money.

1 - to keep in line with in year spending
2 - to fill the time before the T4X
3 - to do the above with out increasing personal costs over all.

2 could be done and deliver better value by getting 9-10 T26s for a similar cost as the 8 by using the learning curve but this will break both 1 and 3 so HMG have said no.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

If a country like New Zealand was interested in the type 26 would this be feasible for its production schedule and would this bring down the unit price to increase the production rate ?

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

It's not affordable for NZ, T31 might work though

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

The decision for N.Z on a replacement frigate is a few years off and nothing has been ruled in or out ,N.Z has been suggested as interested what might a unit price be for a couple of these

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Given the area NZ has to cover if it was me I would go for

2 x Type 31 fitted with the 5" from the Anzac'a plus a Mk-41 VLS to allow 32 CAMM and 2 x 40mm plus 8 NSM crew 110

4 x A ship like the Thetis class fitted with 2 x 40mm and 2 x GAU-19 crew 40 ( 60 on 1.5 )

With both type able to operate NH-90

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 »

I really think, the T31 build pace must be slowed down "a little", so that the production line is "alive" until 2030+.

Slow build is costy, but hurrying is also costy, especially when T26 build is in its man-power peak (= early phase of its drumbeat). I guess, 1 hull per every 1.5 year is not so bad, which is similar to the French Naval/DCNS build pace.

Although fantasy regime, I think....
-------------------------
If T31 hull-1 is to be delivered in early 2025 (T26 hull-1 will also be delivered)
hull-2 can start build 2 years later and be delivered 1.5 years later (say, mid 2026), (also T26 hull-2)
hull-3 delivered on early 2028, (also T26 hull-3)
hull-4 on mid 2030, (also T26 hull-4)
hull-5 on early 2032, (also T26 hull-5)
-------------------------
This will be connected to RNZN Te Kaha replacement start building on 2031, delivered late 2034.
Te Mana replacement start on 2033, delivered mid 2036.
-------------------------

If it happens, the Rosyth yard can survive until mid-2030s.

-------------------------
P.S. In this case, RN frigates with white ensign (not necessarily "commissioned") will be
2023 end 12
2024 end 11
2025 end 10+1+1=12
2026 end 9+2+2 = 13
2027 end 8+2+2 = 12
2027 end 7+3+3 = 13
2029 end 6+4+4 = 14
2030 end 5+4+4 = 13
2031 end 4+5+5 = 14
2032 end 3+5+6 = 14
2033 end 2+5+6 = 13
2034 end 1+5+7 = 13
2035 end 0+5+8 = 13

# As you can see, here I assume 1.5 year drumbeat of T26, assuming the 1.5 years separation of hull-2 and 3 (contracted) continues. Might be wrong, though.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:If it happens, the Rosyth yard can survive until mid-2030s.
Would it not be more sensible to build additional T31's for RN to maintain the drumbeat and optimise cost effectiveness rather scratch around the world for one or two export hulls?

With the amount of RN and RFA vessels required in the next 20 to 30 years there is absolutely no reason why the future of BAE yards at Govan/Scotstoun/Barrow, Babcocks at Rosyth and Cammell Laird in Birkenhead should not be perfectly secure if UK naval shipbuilding is supported by government and contracts are not sent abroad.

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:If it happens, the Rosyth yard can survive until mid-2030s.
Would it not be more sensible to build additional T31's for RN to maintain the drumbeat and optimise cost effectiveness rather scratch around the world for one or two export hulls?

With the amount of RN and RFA vessels required in the next 20 to 30 years there is absolutely no reason why the future of BAE yards at Govan/Scotstoun/Barrow, Babcocks at Rosyth and Cammell Laird in Birkenhead should not be perfectly secure if UK naval shipbuilding is supported by government and contracts are not sent abroad.
Even if we slow down the UK T31 build, if
- export order actually came
- more T31 actually be ordered by MOD
they can just speed it up, LATER. Increasing the build speed is much much easier = cheaper than decreasing it later. This is especially true, as the T26 build with learning curve but with steady drumbeat, will be able to "release" workforces in late 2020s, which Babcock can hire.

I am not that optimistic, though. If you base your assumption in optimism, I shall rather say "RN needs 24 T26, 12 T31, and 3 LPDs with 4 LSS, so all the ship builders has very bright future". But surely, it will NEVER happen. Basing the plan in optimistic future thinking ended up in "wasting money", "cut in RN" and "closure of industry". One thing MOD shall learn is to keep the "baseline" realistic, and wait for any optimistic outcome to come later.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I don't think slowing down is the way to go for me make a second order for 3 more once ship 4 is laid and look to sell ships 1 to 3 or the new ships with customer fit

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Although fantasy regime, I think....
-------------------------
If T31 hull-1 is to be delivered in early 2025 (T26 hull-1 will also be delivered)
hull-2 can start build 2 years later and be delivered 1.5 years later (say, mid 2026), (also T26 hull-2)
hull-3 delivered on early 2028, (also T26 hull-3)
hull-4 on mid 2030, (also T26 hull-4)
hull-5 on early 2032, (also T26 hull-5)
-------------------------
As per the details I posted in the Type 31 thread. Babcock are building a new construction hall at Rosyth for the Type 31 it is made up of two bays allowing two Type 31s to be built at the same time.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Sorry Ron5-san, I disagree. Yes, you can build 8 T26 in 8 years. And then, the shipyard will be closed, because T45 replacement is yet to come. Technology lost, infrastructure lost, man-power lost.

Then, when a time come for T45 replacement, may be UK will be forced to order it to France, or pay a lot (start from educating the man-power, standing-up the infrastructure, building-up a modern technology) and only then built the escort. But, it will never be a high grade one, because it is a "baby" ship building industry. Malaysian shipyard trying to learn how to build modern warship with Gowind2500 ship will be in much better situation than those of UK shipyards if closed for 10 years (because of lack of investments).
Jake1992 wrote:here’s a few reasons the drum beat is there but none of them are to get the best value for money.

1 - to keep in line with in year spending
2 - to fill the time before the T4X
3 - to do the above with out increasing personal costs over all.

2 could be done and deliver better value by getting 9-10 T26s for a similar cost as the 8 by using the learning curve but this will break both 1 and 3 so HMG have said no.
I know a little bit (actually I know a lot) about multi year budgeting of large projects through research, development and production. Production efficiency increases have to be figured out and built into the funding profile. Everyone and every process through out has to be challenged hard to increase productivity. To do otherwise is to die as a company.

The result is a budget funding line (that becomes the actual spending line over time) that is a curve. Every year, every quarter, requires a different amount of funding.

And before you smart folks bring it up, this does not mean a constantly fluctuating work force. They have skills which can't be discarded and instantly regained any more than ship building skills can be.

This isn't trivial to work out and it isn't trivial to manage. But in western economies, every manufacturing company does it. The companies that are better at it, usually have better financial results.

Does it mean the whole class would be delivered in a shorter period? Not unless they want it.

Does this mean that the shipyard would operate with an average of fewer skilled workers? Yes.

Now you guys are telling me, the all mighty British Treasury with its pick of the finest brains from Oxford & Cambridge are not capable of managing a shipbuilding budget that varies from year to year over the life of the program?? With ships being delivered at a faster rate as the shipyard becomes more experienced building that class?

Give me a frikkin break.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

seaspear wrote:If a country like New Zealand was interested in the type 26 would this be feasible for its production schedule and would this bring down the unit price to increase the production rate ?
Wouldn't New Zealand want the ship built in Australia?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I really think, the T31 build pace must be slowed down "a little", so that the production line is "alive" until 2030+.

Slow build is costy, but hurrying is also costy, especially when T26 build is in its man-power peak (= early phase of its drumbeat). I guess, 1 hull per every 1.5 year is not so bad, which is similar to the French Naval/DCNS build pace.

Although fantasy regime, I think....
-------------------------
If T31 hull-1 is to be delivered in early 2025 (T26 hull-1 will also be delivered)
hull-2 can start build 2 years later and be delivered 1.5 years later (say, mid 2026), (also T26 hull-2)
hull-3 delivered on early 2028, (also T26 hull-3)
hull-4 on mid 2030, (also T26 hull-4)
hull-5 on early 2032, (also T26 hull-5)
-------------------------
This will be connected to RNZN Te Kaha replacement start building on 2031, delivered late 2034.
Te Mana replacement start on 2033, delivered mid 2036.
-------------------------

If it happens, the Rosyth yard can survive until mid-2030s.

-------------------------
P.S. In this case, RN frigates with white ensign (not necessarily "commissioned") will be
2023 end 12
2024 end 11
2025 end 10+1+1=12
2026 end 9+2+2 = 13
2027 end 8+2+2 = 12
2027 end 7+3+3 = 13
2029 end 6+4+4 = 14
2030 end 5+4+4 = 13
2031 end 4+5+5 = 14
2032 end 3+5+6 = 14
2033 end 2+5+6 = 13
2034 end 1+5+7 = 13
2035 end 0+5+8 = 13

# As you can see, here I assume 1.5 year drumbeat of T26, assuming the 1.5 years separation of hull-2 and 3 (contracted) continues. Might be wrong, though.
The whole point of building Type 31's quickly is to replace Type 23's before they fall apart. As it is, even with the short schedule, escort numbers will take a dip with Type 23's going out of service before replacement Type 31's come into service.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:
P.S. In this case, RN frigates with white ensign (not necessarily "commissioned") will be
2023 end 12
2024 end 11
2025 end 10+1+1=12
2026 end 9+2+2 = 13
2027 end 8+2+2 = 12
2028 end 7+3+3 = 13
2029 end 6+4+4 = 14
2030 end 5+4+4 = 13
2031 end 4+5+5 = 14
2032 end 3+5+6 = 14
2033 end 2+5+6 = 13
2034 end 1+5+7 = 13
2035 end 0+5+8 = 13

# As you can see, here I assume 1.5 year drumbeat of T26, assuming the 1.5 years separation of hull-2 and 3 (contracted) continues. Might be wrong, though.
The whole point of building Type 31's quickly is to replace Type 23's before they fall apart. As it is, even with the short schedule, escort numbers will take a dip with Type 23's going out of service before replacement Type 31's come into service.
But at least up to 2026, the schedule is the same as currently planned (actually, a half year delay oh hull-2). So, “gap” until 2026 is non related to the “slightly slow” build.
My point is, even so, after 2026, there is no big gap.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Its likely that N.Zs replacement frigate will be from overseas it could just as easily be the U.S FFG(X) 800 mill U.S cheaper than the type 26 and with more yards in the U.S a quicker delivery schedule , if N.Z wanted the type 26 perhaps B.A.E could organise the run schedules from different countries so that one ship could come from Australia another from another country

Post Reply