Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:there would be an argument that the equivalent of Aegis Ashore would be a much less expensive option for defending UK than fitting to destroyer.
Here's a good inventory of problems with such an approach... which Japan took so that their top destroyers would not be 'locked in' to a small box of sea, for them to be able to provide the missile shield:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -two-spys/

There's also a passing mention of the usefulness of LEOs in providing sufficient sensor range so that there is time to react to hypersonic or low-level cruise missile threats
- and whether we will be able to pursue that avenue, having enough of such assets in orbit, is a topic that James Cook writes about on p.5 of yesterday's The Sunday Telegraph. Namely, the UK 500 mln was meant to be just the seed money, to enable the purchase. If any other members of 'the bidding consortium' are from other countries that could trigger a CFIUS review, blocking the whole thing.
- in addition UK Space Agency employees have warned that for GPS purposes the system could turn out to be inaccurate without hundreds of satellites. However, for a key building block for a viable missile defence half a bn should be considered 'cheap'
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Correction to the above post: not p.5 but the cover page of The Sunday Telegraph biz section
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

[quote="ArmChairCivvy"
Here's a good inventory of problems with such an approach... which Japan took so that their top destroyers would not be 'locked in' to a small box of sea, for them to be able to provide the missile shield:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -two-spys/ [/quote]

The thinking behind my comment was reflection of USN Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson views below, re Japan hopefully shore base launch site would be situated near coast so that booster debris would land in sea, don't understand why Japan didn't take this simple option. Change from 2018 when CNO expressed his views is that the capability of SPY-6 / SM-3 Block IIA with much longer range would allow relaxation of the size of the "box" and number of destroyers required, but still not a good use of destroyers.

DefenseNews, WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy’s top officer wants to end standing ballistic missile defense patrols and transfer the mission to shore-based assets.

"USN Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said in no uncertain terms on June 12 [2018] that he wants the Navy off the tether of ballistic missile defense patrols, a mission that has put a growing strain on the Navy’s hard-worn surface combatants, and the duty shifted towards more shore-based infrastructure.

“Right now, as we speak, I have six multi-mission, very sophisticated, dynamic cruisers and destroyers ― six of them are on ballistic missile defense duty at sea,” Richardson said during his address at the U.S. Naval War College’s Current Strategy Forum. “And if you know a little bit about this business you know that geometry is a tyrant.

“You have to be in a tiny little box to have a chance at intercepting that incoming missile. So, we have six ships that could go anywhere in the world, at flank speed, in a tiny little box, defending land.”

“It’s a pretty good capability and if there is an emergent need to provide ballistic missile defense, we’re there,” he said. “But 10 years down the road, it’s time to build something on land to defend the land. Whether that’s AEGIS ashore or whatever, I want to get out of the long-term missile defense business and move to dynamic missile defense.”


Also mentions to keep six ships active needed eighteen, with T45 averaging only 85 days at sea p.a. would need 26 ships!, other point raised was only require ~30 to man Aegis Ashore installation less than 10% of a single Burke crew.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... e-patrols/

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote:It's not a good point. No company ever chooses their next product based on which one requires the most R&D hours.
Good luck finding a job in a high tech industry with your idea that keeping the same product in production for decades is a good idea. A healthy R& D department has to be maintained through use.

And by the way, isn't the justification for Tempest mostly based on keeping UK design skills alive??

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Ron5 wrote:Good luck
Thanks for the support Ron, and I've already mad it there mate.

All I can say is at the main gate decision meeting, nobody has ever said "this project doesn't employ enough bloody expensive engineers, please go back and redesign more stuff for no benefit!"

Truth is almost everything we do is evolutionary because gas turbines are a mature design now, meaning a clean sheet design can't be sold for more than an incremental design, meaning the cheaper option wins. I'm going to argue the same is pretty much true for a carrier escort these days, theirs little value added being revolutionary, so it's preferable to increment away and return way better value for money.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote:please go back and redesign more stuff for no benefit
Don't recall saying that :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

shark bait wrote:Truth is almost everything we do is evolutionary
Someone might want to tell that to a number of programme manager within the MoD, such as those planning future capabilities for the Army. Their ideas a nothing but revolutionary, looking for capabilities that are either still on the drawing board or in someone's head.

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Zero Gravitas »

After a very lengthy and troubled gestation, both T26 and T31 are progressing.

With international sales T26 is looking like a genuine success.

Any amateur student of the RN over the last few decades will know that it is inevitable - inevitable - that the forthcoming Cummings led security review will decide that both programmes need major changes, likely one of them will be cancelled for a new and ‘cheaper’ programme which will of course, cost more money. We’ll probably end up with the on-order 3 T26s and more ‘jam tomorrow’.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Zero Gravitas wrote:After a very lengthy and troubled gestation, both T26 and T31 are progressing.

With international sales T26 is looking like a genuine success.

Any amateur student of the RN over the last few decades will know that it is inevitable - inevitable - that the forthcoming Cummings led security review will decide that both programmes need major changes, likely one of them will be cancelled for a new and ‘cheaper’ programme which will of course, cost more money. We’ll probably end up with the on-order 3 T26s and more ‘jam tomorrow’.
I’m not sure on that Cummings seems to be much more focused on clearing out the over entitaled civil service, this combined with the need to be more global focused rather than regional in making post EU times work will mean a greater defence focus.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2785
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Zero Gravitas wrote:After a very lengthy and troubled gestation, both T26 and T31 are progressing
I would have said that, by MOD standards, the T31 program was a model of alacrity. T26, not so much
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Zero Gravitas »

Yes, but if I was being negative I’d argue that T31 is just the reheated c2/c3 concept stemming from, what the early 90s?

albedo
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by albedo »

Zero Gravitas wrote:Yes, but if I was being negative I’d argue that T31 is just the reheated c2/c3 concept stemming from, what the early 90s?
But is there anything wrong or surprising about that? It's often the case in big, long-term enterprises that a strong case can be made for different strategic approaches. Typically, one way isn't right and the other wrong - they're perhaps equally valid but with different sets of pros and cons. What tends to happen is that for a while one way is in the ascendency, often led by an individual whose preference is for that particular approach. But then some years later the alternative view reasserts its values.

I've seen this in my own professional field of drug discovery/development. There's one strong argument that a large pharmaceutical company should always have a good OTC (over-the-counter) arm selling things like cough medicines, Beechams Pills etc. The idea is that there should always be a stable cashflow from this arm of the business to help even out the peaks and troughs of income from prescription drugs as old drugs go off-patent before new ones are launched. The counter argument is that this just dilutes senior management focus and it's much better for the business to have single focus on developing new prescription drugs.

Actually neither way is right or wrong. But what happens in practice is that large pharma companies are forever selling their OTC arms to one another - it's just a merry-go-round over the years.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2785
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Zero Gravitas wrote:Yes, but if I was being negative I’d argue that T31 is just the reheated c2/c3 concept stemming from, what the early 90s?
I would agree with that, though I'm not sure that that is a bad thing. Most other navies operate a similar structure of primary and secondary combattants, along with utility/ patrol/ low-end security types. Be interesting to see what we eventually get in the C3 role (if I live that long) :problem:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Zero Gravitas »

albedo wrote:
Zero Gravitas wrote:Yes, but if I was being negative I’d argue that T31 is just the reheated c2/c3 concept stemming from, what the early 90s?
But is there anything wrong or surprising about that? It's often the case in big, long-term enterprises that a strong case can be made for different strategic approaches. Typically, one way isn't right and the other wrong - they're perhaps equally valid but with different sets of pros and cons. What tends to happen is that for a while one way is in the ascendency, often led by an individual whose preference is for that particular approach. But then some years later the alternative view reasserts its values.

I've seen this in my own professional field of drug discovery/development. There's one strong argument that a large pharmaceutical company should always have a good OTC (over-the-counter) arm selling things like cough medicines, Beechams Pills etc. The idea is that there should always be a stable cashflow from this arm of the business to help even out the peaks and troughs of income from prescription drugs as old drugs go off-patent before new ones are launched. The counter argument is that this just dilutes senior management focus and it's much better for the business to have single focus on developing new prescription drugs.
It's exactly the same in the (non-defence) related industry I work in.

This is the real British productivity disease I believe. How is it possible to make progress when no plan may ever be implemented to fruition? Acceptance of this trait as the norm consigns the UK to becoming ever less competitive. I'd be grateful if any non-British posters could suggest what their view of the above business philosophy is? (I do not mean to pick on albedo, he sets out a very common British view very eloquently. I just think we are quite wrong to accept that it has to be so)
albedo wrote:Actually neither way is right or wrong. But what happens in practice is that large pharma companies are forever selling their OTC arms to one another - it's just a merry-go-round over the years.
I believe that the point that you miss in this is that any strategy or plan, is almost always better than no strategy or plan at all. Swapping between different strategies every few years is usually a recipe for long-term disaster. But often the single bravest thing you can say in any British institution is "no, let's not do this"

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Zero Gravitas »

Jake1992 wrote:
Zero Gravitas wrote:After a very lengthy and troubled gestation, both T26 and T31 are progressing.

With international sales T26 is looking like a genuine success.

Any amateur student of the RN over the last few decades will know that it is inevitable - inevitable - that the forthcoming Cummings led security review will decide that both programmes need major changes, likely one of them will be cancelled for a new and ‘cheaper’ programme which will of course, cost more money. We’ll probably end up with the on-order 3 T26s and more ‘jam tomorrow’.
I’m not sure on that Cummings seems to be much more focused on clearing out the over entitaled civil service, this combined with the need to be more global focused rather than regional in making post EU times work will mean a greater defence focus.
It's five years since Cameron said:

"We will also launch a concept study and then design and build a new class of lighter, flexible general purpose frigates so that by the 2030s we can further increase the total number of frigates and destroyers. These general purpose frigates are also likely to offer increased export potential."

That's a looooong time in terms of British policy these days. Time for a nice review.

Cameron said this would help drive numbers up above 19. Who now believes that?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Zero Gravitas wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Zero Gravitas wrote:After a very lengthy and troubled gestation, both T26 and T31 are progressing.

With international sales T26 is looking like a genuine success.

Any amateur student of the RN over the last few decades will know that it is inevitable - inevitable - that the forthcoming Cummings led security review will decide that both programmes need major changes, likely one of them will be cancelled for a new and ‘cheaper’ programme which will of course, cost more money. We’ll probably end up with the on-order 3 T26s and more ‘jam tomorrow’.
I’m not sure on that Cummings seems to be much more focused on clearing out the over entitaled civil service, this combined with the need to be more global focused rather than regional in making post EU times work will mean a greater defence focus.
It's five years since Cameron said:

"We will also launch a concept study and then design and build a new class of lighter, flexible general purpose frigates so that by the 2030s we can further increase the total number of frigates and destroyers. These general purpose frigates are also likely to offer increased export potential."

That's a looooong time in terms of British policy these days. Time for a nice review.

Cameron said this would help drive numbers up above 19. Who now believes that?
What has that got to do with Cummings ?

We typically have a defence review every 5 or so years anyways normally not to long after a new government comes in.

albedo
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by albedo »

Zero Gravitas wrote:
albedo wrote:Actually neither way is right or wrong. But what happens in practice is that large pharma companies are forever selling their OTC arms to one another - it's just a merry-go-round over the years.
I believe that the point that you miss in this is that any strategy or plan, is almost always better than no strategy or plan at all. Swapping between different strategies every few years is usually a recipe for long-term disaster. But often the single bravest thing you can say in any British institution is "no, let's not do this"
Actually, I felt my post was over-long already. The more complete version would have added something along the lines:

While neither way (of multiple strategic options) is right or wrong, it is a waste of corporate time and energy to keep switching horses every few years (unless external circumstances or analyses change to such an extent that one of the options becomes clearly favoured). Much better to have a corporate policy that sticks to one strategy (while keeping a careful eye on external circumstances) for an extended period.

So I suspect that our views are not so very different.

But I guess my overall point is that it's a major waste of effort to constantly try to prove that one of two broadly comparable approaches is 'better' than the other. But once a decision has been made and in the absence of any new confounding factors then we should stick to that decision.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Zero Gravitas wrote: clearing out the over entitaled civil service
Please differentiate between the Senior Civil Service and those who actually work for a living. It really (biting one's tongue) annoys me when ignorant people don't

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:
Zero Gravitas wrote: clearing out the over entitaled civil service
Please differentiate between the Senior Civil Service and those who actually work for a living. It really (biting one's tongue) annoys me when ignorant people don't
I am sorry that is what I was getting at with the over entitaled, I was not referring to the average civil servant.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok thanks for that, calming down now :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Nothing, absolutely nothing good can be said about the gestation to the Type 26. ClusterF of biblical proportions. Hopefully never to be repeated.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

As much as I want to defend our various uk governments, they all think short term on every thing that costs money :yawn:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Twelve month cycles and nothing beyond that except PR talk.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:nothing beyond that except PR talk
We are half way through with the Integrated Review and it has been eerily quiet,
- the 12 month cycle would take us past the budget "revelations"
- would v much hope for the reversed order: publish the rationale first and the numbers (as in financial figures; not the exact manpower changes etc that will take time to work out) then
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)

J. Tattersall

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by J. Tattersall »

serge750 wrote: As much as I want to defend our various uk governments, they all think short term on every thing that costs money
This is a bit of an urban myth. Default investment timescale considered in making MOD investment decisions is 25 years; this is not short term by most people's understanding. Detailed planning stretches out to ten years. The problems which all governments face is that by and large predicting tax revenues is highly dependent on predicting the future economy, and any shortfall has to be made up in borrowing, which is essentially deferred taxation. Running out of money has a habit of forcing one's hand whether a private citizen or a government, this is harsh reality and not necessarily short termism.

Post Reply