Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Well if we were going to get a few more T31's, lets hope they are more like the Leander rather than a river B3 (avenger?) not that I would mind having the avenger for local flag waving duties i.e. fleet ready escort, med etc, but if they would be global frigates I think a Leander is the minimum required,

8 x Leander and 8 x T26

or

4 x avenger and 12 x T26 ?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Or 16 x T26 and 16 x T31 (Leander). :mrgreen:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Interesting that the suggestion is to possibly increase T31's or the 'excellent OPV's'.
There could be a number of good options here lets say we end up with a 120 meter Leander as the T-31 this could open the door to three options

1 ) more T-31's

2 ) after the 5 120 meter Leander's are built we could go for four or five 107 meter Leander's fitted with the same kit as on the first batch but with 12 CAMM

3 ) Four or five River B3 105 meters long Scanter 4100 radar, BAE/CMS , Wildcat Hangar and flight dack , same main gun as T-31 , 2 x 30mm , FFBNW phalanx

Of course there is the forth option which could be 1 or 2 more T-26

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

serge750 wrote:4 x avenger and 12 x T26 ?
:thumbup: plus another 5 Avengers as part of the MCM replacement.
”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
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

Repulse wrote:plus another 5 Avengers
Avengers assemble! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

serge750 wrote:4 x avenger and 12 x T26 ?
Repulse wrote:4 x avenger and 12 x T26 ?
I don't think we will ever see a River B3 that looks like the Avenger concept I think if we see a B3 River it will be a River front end and a Khareef style rear end at bout 105 meters long

As said I would like to the T-31s armed with 76mm and 40mm as it now looks like they will not get phalanx and for me this would allow a better weapons spread cross the fleet like so

Type 26 1 x 5", 2 x 40mm , 2 phalanx , 48 CAMM
Type 45 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x phalanx , 48 Aster
Type 31 ( 117 meter ) 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM
*
River B2 1 x 40mm , 2 x 12.7mm

* could be one of two ships

1 ) 107 meter Leander with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 12 CAMM
2 ) 105 meter River with 1 x 76mm , 1 x 40mm

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Interesting that the suggestion is to possibly increase T31's or the 'excellent OPV's'.
There could be a number of good options here lets say we end up with a 120 meter Leander as the T-31 this could open the door to three options
1 ) more T-31's
2 ) after the 5 120 meter Leander's are built we could go for four or five 107 meter Leander's fitted with the same kit as on the first batch but with 12 CAMM
3 ) Four or five River B3 105 meters long Scanter 4100 radar, BAE/CMS , Wildcat Hangar and flight dack , same main gun as T-31 , 2 x 30mm , FFBNW phalanx

Of course there is the forth option which could be 1 or 2 more T-26
Reading between the lines it appears extra T26's aren't even being considered, probably because the funding for one extra T26 would procure three T31's or five top end OPV's. Clearly the politicians will want the cheapest option but most would agree that RN needs more vessels capable of fighting and winning rather than another batch of RB2's.

The current mini crisis in the Gulf highlights the fact that RN must be given the vessels to react to any plausible scenario but that doesn't necessarily mean building more £1bn Frigates and Destroyers. Actually I think the role HMS Montrose played was exactly what the T31's have been designed to do, keep the sea-lanes open and the UK's trade flowing.

Unfortunately, I think the T31's would be sitting ducks in the Gulf and anywhere else east of Suez. This is primarily due to the fact that current planning appears to have virtually no ASW capability east of Suez unless the CSG or an SSN is passing through. It would be a massive capability gap but one that is easily solved by adding hull mounted sonar's and tails to the T31's. Maybe not the full 2150/2087 combination but a package capable of at least assessing what is happening under the surface as well as above it. Something like KingKlip and Captas 1 or 2 would seem like an affordable option for a RN GP Frigate going forward.

As for the options above,
(1) I think more than five T31's are highly likely but it remains to be seen where the crews are coming from to operate them.

(2) The follow-on batch of 107m Leanders is a really viable option as it would increase the size of the fleet in a meaningful way but at an affordable cost. Personally though I would favour an initial Batch of four or five 105m Leanders to be built first with 76mm/2x30mm/12CAMM/Artisan/Kingklip and Captas1. These 105m or 107m Leanders would be perfect for operating in places like the Med and the Gulf. They could then be followed up by a Batch of 130mX16m Leanders which if properly configured could be a worthy successor to the GP T23's.

(3) A Batch of RB3's would clearly be the cheapest option but 105m Leanders would be superior in virtually every way for a very modest cost increase. I think they would be a better option.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Tempest414 wrote:
serge750 wrote:4 x avenger and 12 x T26 ?
Repulse wrote:4 x avenger and 12 x T26 ?
I don't think we will ever see a River B3 that looks like the Avenger concept I think if we see a B3 River it will be a River front end and a Khareef style rear end at bout 105 meters long

As said I would like to the T-31s armed with 76mm and 40mm as it now looks like they will not get phalanx and for me this would allow a better weapons spread cross the fleet like so

Type 26 1 x 5", 2 x 40mm , 2 phalanx , 48 CAMM
Type 45 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x phalanx , 48 Aster
Type 31 ( 117 meter ) 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM
*
River B2 1 x 40mm , 2 x 12.7mm

* could be one of two ships

1 ) 107 meter Leander with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 12 CAMM
2 ) 105 meter River with 1 x 76mm , 1 x 40mm
Why does it look like they wont get Phalanx?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq, The Avenger had a CAMM VLS amidships (12 cells I believe), Artisan and 2 x 30mms - change the 114mm gun with something smaller and you are pretty much at what you describe for the T31 above. Would like more of a mission bay at he rear and this is my vision of a B3 River Sloop.

Image
”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

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:Unfortunately, I think the T31's would be sitting ducks in the Gulf and anywhere else east of Suez. This is primarily due to the fact that current planning appears to have virtually no ASW capability ...
Adding a hull sonar will still keep it a sitting duck. Modern SSK threat is not that low. In the Gulf, I guess modern torpedo defense system will be more important, such as Sea Sentor RN has. If the ship survives the first attack, then it is the SSK which became very vulnerable. A few P-8As or even SH60R/Merlins/NH90s will shortly come and hunt her.

Detecting torpedo is doable, but detecting silent SSK is never an easy task. If something is meaningful for T31e in singleton in hunting SSK, I think CAPTAS-4CI will be the minimum.

On the other hand, by having BlueWatcher/Kingklip/MFS7000 level hull sonar and CAPTAS-1, the ship can contribute as "part of" ASW fleet of assets (although only a small area around her, which is valuable).

On the other hand, modern SSK threat is very restricted in area. Most of the world is free of such SSK. This is why T31e is designed without ASW sensor.

In short, if T31e is to be sent to Gulf, I think it must
- be equipped with torpedo defense system
- and coupled with P-8A or alike.

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:(1) I think more than five T31's are highly likely but it remains to be seen where the crews are coming from to operate them.

(2) The follow-on batch of 107m Leanders is a really viable option as it would increase the size of the fleet in a meaningful way but at an affordable cost. Personally though I would favour an initial Batch of four or five 105m Leanders to be built first with 76mm/2x30mm/12CAMM/Artisan/Kingklip and Captas1. These 105m or 107m Leanders would be perfect for operating in places like the Med and the Gulf. They could then be followed up by a Batch of 130mX16m Leanders which if properly configured could be a worthy successor to the GP T23's.

(3) A Batch of RB3's would clearly be the cheapest option but 105m Leanders would be superior in virtually every way for a very modest cost increase. I think they would be a better option.
Although I myself is very much excited with the "variants of Leanders" to see, I'm afraid just going on with 117m Leander, with some variety in equipments, will be the cheapest option. Many variations I can "fantasy"...

-GP light frigate Leander-117: 57mm/2x 30mm/24 CAMM/8 NSM/SeaSentor torpedo defense/a Wildcat/BlueWatcher hull sonar+CAPTAS-2/4 boat bays/with frigate standard hull.

-close-in defense specialist Leander-117 : 2x 57mm/2x 30mm+LMM/2x 20mm CIWS/SeaSentor torpedo defense/a Wildcat/4 boat bays/with frigate standard hull.

- Floreal-like Leander-117 : 114mm/2x 30mm+LMM/20mm CIWS/a Wildcat/4 boat bays/with OPV standard hull

==========================================

I personally think, the 5 T31e to be built soon shall be "biased", like
- 2 Floreal-like Leander-117 : with ~210 days/year sea-going days to cover 1 standing patrol (180 days/each) + training/transit (30 days/each) (+maintenance ~150 days each)
- and 3 light frigate Leander-117 : with ~150 days/year sea-going days to cover 1 standing frigate task (120 days each) + training/transit (30 days each) (+maintenance/rest ~210 days each)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

dmereifield wrote:Why does it look like they wont get Phalanx?
both A-140 and Leander last offering have been without Phalanx

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Why does it look like they wont get Phalanx?
both A-140 and Leander last offering have been without Phalanx
A140 had two of them on top of the hangar. But, the persons did not mentioned anything about it, so may be not "important" for them.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:-close-in defense specialist Leander-117 : 2x 57mm/2x 30mm+LMM/2x 20mm CIWS/SeaSentor torpedo defense/a Wildcat/4 boat bays/with frigate standard hull.
Where do you see all that kit being fitted on a Leander .

However a A-140 could have

1 x 76mm ,2 x 57mm or 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 24 CAMM , 2 x 8 round LMM mounts (in fact this set up is @ 1.16 into the A-140 walkthrough)
or
3 x 57mm , 2 x Phalanx , 24 CAMM 2 x 8 round LMM mounts

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:-close-in defense specialist Leander-117 : 2x 57mm/2x 30mm+LMM/2x 20mm CIWS/SeaSentor torpedo defense/a Wildcat/4 boat bays/with frigate standard hull.
Where do you see all that kit being fitted on a Leander .
Thanks, I was imagining;
- 1x 57mm at the bow, 1x 57mm "around" the hangar (virtually) replacing the 2x 30mm there
- 2x 30mm gun on each side of the "front of the bridge" (virtually replacing CAMM)
- 2 CIWS on top of the boat bay (because there is no SSM).

If this is too top heavy, may be the 2nd 57mm gun can go, and 2x 30mm gun can go back to the original location.

Importantly, I think it shall not carry CAMM, which is too complex weapon and too long range. "Close-in defense" means you shoot anything you can only "visibly identify". Also too strong bullets are not good, because of collateral damage. But, anyway, it is only one of my proposals, and the one which is less likely to realize....

[EDIT] But I do think T31e shall better be "biased", as lightly armed and even "not fully frigate standard" version, and a full light-light frigate version.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

PLAN ships launched in first six months of 2019

4x Type 052D+ (or Type 052E) variant ~7,000t destroyer with the
1 - Lengthened helo pad (for 10t Z-20?) said to be copy/variant of UH-60
2 - New surveillance radar, VHF band AESA with 12 modules? negates the fifth generation fighters stealth RCS capability of F-22/F-35 at cost of limited range resolution of ~900m.
3 - Type-1130 CIWS instead of the Type-730, equipped with a new 11-barrelled 30mm gun (~10,000 rpm), fitted with two ammunition 1280 round drums, one on each side

6X Type 056 ~ 1,400 corvettes

1x Type 071 ~ 25,000t LPD
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Adding a hull sonar will still keep it a sitting duck. Modern SSK threat is not that low. In the Gulf, I guess modern torpedo defense system will be more important, such as Sea Sentor RN has.
Agreed but that's not a good reason to start building Frigates without an ASW capability. I am not suggesting these vessels would be top quality Sub hunters, but they would have a better understanding of what was going on beneath the surface as well as above it.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:If something is meaningful for T31e in singleton in hunting SSK, I think CAPTAS-4CI will be the minimum.
You could well be right, maybe the French have reached the same conclusion with the FTI and if so that should be the baseline going forward.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:This is why T31e is designed without ASW sensor.
It is clearly a massive mistake and hopefully sense prevails before they are built. Building Frigates without even a hull mounted sonar is clearly bonkers and Tresury induced cost cutting gone way too far.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:In short, if T31e is to be sent to Gulf, I think it must
- be equipped with torpedo defense system
- and coupled with P-8A or alike.
I agree with the torpedo defence system but we simply won't have enough P8's to guarantee that.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I'm afraid just going on with 117m Leander, with some variety in equipments, will be the cheapest option.
It won't be cheaper than the 99m and 103m variants. I estimate that by shrinking the LOA from 117m down to around 105m, keeping the CAMM load down to 12, replacing the Mk8 with a 76mm and reducing the core crew down to ~80, around £30m could be saved per hull or £150m over the batch of five vessels. This is the money I would reinvest in adding a credible ASW capability to the class.

A 105m Leander would not be a Frigate, more of a Global Security Vessel so the T31 would be reserved for a second batch of improved and enlarged GP Leander Frigates. Something worthy of following the GP T23's.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Tempest414 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Why does it look like they wont get Phalanx?
both A-140 and Leander last offering have been without Phalanx
Are they without Phalanx but FTR Phalanx or are they not able to receive Phalanx? I'd have thought (hoped) the former, and that Phalanx isnt being included in the offers becuase the RN will use it's pool of Phalanx to supply it as and when the T31 need them

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:Poiuytrewq, The Avenger had a CAMM VLS amidships (12 cells I believe), Artisan and 2 x 30mms - change the 114mm gun with something smaller and you are pretty much at what you describe for the T31 above. Would like more of a mission bay at he rear and this is my vision of a B3 River Sloop Image
If the CAMM tubes were moved forward the Avenger could have a very flexible amidships mission space, similar to the PPA and should be easily CB90/LCVP capable. With a heavy duty deck crane fitted deploying UUV's approaching 30t could be possible if the capacity of the amidships working deck is 4 or 5 ISO's. The low CoG of the RB2/Leander/Avenger design would be a big help.

It's just a pity we don't know a bit more about Avengers build standards and cost comparison vs Leander. A 117m or 120m Leander with an Avenger style amidships setup would be an interesting option. I suspect it would be a very capable vessel and provide options that today's fleet doesn't currently have.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

So I get we may wish to help in the flow of trade and the like but why should we commit 2 escort vessels when countries like Japan, Korea Singapore are not?

These 2 “British” tankers are vessels built in the Far East operating between the gulf and japan and Singapore respectively one operated by a Japanese shipping company the other charter most likely by BP Singapore. They have a flag of convenience of the IOM to avoid paying tax noting else.

Why should we commit limited resources when we get no benefit? Where are our Far Eastern allies?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq, even without moving the CAMM launcher it could still operate a couple of 12m boats/UUVs - looking at the image it could operate 4 ribs.

I’d say a 102m “Avenger” would be approx 2,800t. Without the TOBA, a 2,000t B2 River would each have cost @ £100mn per unit or £50k per tonne. Built to the same standards, I’d say a base unit cost of £140mn would be reasonable, add another £35mm for Artisan, TTPS, soft kill, a 57mm, another 30mm and a 12 cell CAMM VLS, would make it in the order of £175mn.

Buy four, with a plan to build more as part of the MCM replacement, and squeeze at least another T26.
”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

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:It is clearly a massive mistake and hopefully sense prevails before they are built. Building Frigates without even a hull mounted sonar is clearly bonkers and Tresury induced cost cutting gone way too far.
I am looking from a bit different point of view.

T31e cost came out of T26's cost (actually, NAO says it become independent item only recently). Thus, if better T31e is required, it will simply cut into T26 capability (say, no Mk. 41 VLS at all, or significant ruction in CMS capability?). I do not like it. Of course, increasing the total equipment budget is important, but the 10 year plans already has 5-10B GBP gap, so filling it will be the first priority (or RN will be forced significant cut).

Anyway, T31e cost is NOT an independent issue. Putting money there means NOT putting money elsewhere.

But I agree it is too less armed. One proposal is to "bias" it, so that 3 (or 2) out of 5 be equipped better, while "hollowing" the remaining 2 (or 3). Second idea (my biggest hope now) is to reduce the number of hulls from 5 to 4, generating extra money "internally" for more equipments.

As RN has 2 escorts not used, this will have zero damage to the RN fleet, other than "on paper". Also, current escorts' average sea-going days of 80-90 days is only 60% of the number seen before 2015, which means there are another field (other than simply adding a hull) to massively improve the RN escort fleet.

#If "19 escort saga" is important, just leave the last hull for future decision hoping for "efficiency savings" (which means hopeless for me :D ).
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I'm afraid just going on with 117m Leander, with some variety in equipments, will be the cheapest option.
It won't be cheaper than the 99m and 103m variants. ...
No big objection to your comment. My point is, "learning curve".

For example, I think the "6th" hull of T31e will be ~20% cheaper than "the average-cost of the first 5 hulls". (Just saying, unit cost is cheaper than average cost, because of design+initial costs and the famous learning curve). If those 107m version or so be built in number, then there average cost become near the unit-cost, and your calculation prevails. If it is 3-5 hulls each, I am not sure if the reduction in cost based on reduction in hull-size can pay for the extra "un-learning" costs.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I think we are in danger of putting the solution ahead of understanding the requirement. The requirement relating to what the UK needs in terms of surface warships I see are:

1) UK EEZ Defence: FRE, TAPS, Fisheries & MCM
2) CASD support: TAPS
3) BOT Defence: Deterrence and surveillance
4) Policing and Security of SLOCs: Protecting UK (and allies) shipping and trade interests (e.g. the Gulf). Plus enforcing the right of freedom of navigation through international waters (e.g. the South China Sea, Black Sea)
5) Sea Control: Ability to prevent hostile warships / task groups operating in the North Atlantic, North Sea, English Channel, around any of our BOTs or in coalition elsewhere.
6) Power Projection: Protecting Carrier Strike or Amphibious Assault Task groups.

I’m going to overlay this with:
- the proliferation of A2D systems from Russia (and to a degree China) who are looking to increase influence and disruption to the world order.
- the increasing capability of off-board systems for MCM, ASW and Surveillance.
- the age of uncertain alliances, the chances of the UK having to act independently is increasing not decreasing as was assumed in SDSR 2010.

In terms of “warships”, I’d say:
- the current 8 Rivers B1 & B2 and MCMs can cover (1) & (3), including the FRE requirement. If things get hot we are talking about (5).
- (2) requires ASW so is a combination of a T26 and MCMs
- (5) & (6) require SSNs, T26s, T45s and MCMs, sure more minor warships can take a role but in a war situation and in the age of A2D systems they would be a liability. My personal view is that the RN should focus on the creation of 4 Task Groups, based around a CVF or LPD+LPH, each with 3-4 T26s/T45s plus a SSN, which are rotated through refit, training, North Atlantic and East of Suez (training / flag waving) operations, ready to intervene and also join together for larger task groups.

So (4) is where we are really talking about. If the UK could enough afford T26s and T45s then this would be of course the preference. Assuming that no big boost in cash is coming soon, it then needs to be done on a threat level.

I’d argue that a B2 River with some modest modifications could cover 2/3rds of the scenarios under (4) such as the Med, Horn of Africa or Mallaca Straights. The remaining 1/3rd would require something with a higher degree of self defence, but if it turns hot we are in scenario (5) or (6) anyway - this is where the T31 seems to being pitched.

My view is that a B3 River (Avenger) with the ability to operate off-board systems and RM boats is the appropriate choice for the T31 requirement. I could easily see a ship with 50 RMs (with a couple of Ribs), Wildcat, ASW & MCM drones, small/medium guns and a small number of CAMM as a perfect fit for the current need to the Gulf.

For me this translates as an approx surface warship fleet of the following:
- 8 to 9 B1 & B2 River OPVs
- 3 to 4 Avenger (River B3) Sloops
- 10 to 12 T26s
- 6 T45s

As the B1 Rivers & MCMs are withdrawn I’d see the Avenger fleet being increased by another 6, coupled with some Serco manned motherships.
”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

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 »

Repulse wrote:...I’d argue that a B2 River with some modest modifications could cover 2/3rds of the scenarios under (4) such as the Med, Horn of Africa or Mallaca Straights. The remaining 1/3rd would require something with a higher degree of self defence, but if it turns hot we are in scenario (5) or (6) anyway - this is where the T31 seems to being pitched.

My view is that a B3 River (Avenger) with the ability to operate off-board systems and RM boats is the appropriate choice for the T31 requirement. I could easily see a ship with 50 RMs (with a couple of Ribs), Wildcat, ASW & MCM drones, small/medium guns and a small number of CAMM as a perfect fit for the current need to the Gulf.
Does your "B3 River (Avenger)" need high damage control or OPV standard is OK?

If you need frigate standard hull, what is the benefit of B3 River (Avenger) compared to "down-armed Leander"? Avenger is good, but with current status of Leander (will be able to start detailed design = including build process), shifting to Avenger has what strong merit over Leander?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Does your "B3 River (Avenger)" need high damage control or OPV standard is OK?
As I understand it, the B2 damage control is towards a gold standard for OPVs. My view is that it doesn’t need a “Frigate” level of damage control, it is not intended to purposely be put in harms way, so the principle is not to take damage and still be able to fight, its to take damage and withdraw or abandon ship with minimal loss of life.

I’d say that moving from a B2 to a B3/Avenger would be an evolution, not a massive redesign so nothing is lost at this stage.

The benefit is another £1/2bn back into the T26 budget.
”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

Post Reply