Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Anthony58
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 14 Feb 2021, 19:23
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Anthony58 »

In reply to AndyC, you need to crew them and how many Type 23's will be fit for purpose?

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by AndyC »

In the details of Navy Command to 2030 I've estimated that the Royal Navy could get an additional 1,100 personnel out of the increased budget for the next four years. That's just about enough for five Type 23s.

Sources are also being quoted above by ArmChairCivvy that HMS Lancaster and HMS Iron Duke will get extra re-fits to keep them going. So I don't know exactly how many will be on full duty and how many might be resting in port at any given moment but enough to stop numbers dropping too low.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

potential to gain on the lead time from design to build
The decipher key (for what I meant) was provided ;)
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)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

I wonder, how much could current manning crisis of the RN be solved if, instead of spending billions on equipment, they spend, say, 500 mil. pounds on incentives for enlistment into a RN ( say 100 000 pounds per recruit that passes training- with obligation to stay in the RN for say 10 years or return the money with interest ).
100 000 quids isn't some fabulous sum of money, but it could be nice thing to get. 500 mil. is enough for 5000 additional men.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
potential to gain on the lead time from design to build
The decipher key (for what I meant) was provided ;)
Still doesn't provide any kind of description of what you mean by "sharing hulls". My conclusion is that you don't know what that means either.

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: My conclusion is that you don't know what that means either.
Hull form is normally an early (and often prolonged) step in the design process. Start from Step Two... and even you can work out the rest :) .

I can see (err feel) that you are back to your snarly form; what's happened?

And just in case there is a translation difficulty, if they speak different in Palm Springs, one of the thesaurus alternatives will surely be recognised:
"tangled, baffling, problematic, convoluted, tortuous, gnarled, knotty, tough, involved, knobbed, snarled, knotted, elusive, problematical, gnarly"
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: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote: My conclusion is that you don't know what that means either.
Hull form is normally an early (and often prolonged) step in the design process. Start from Step Two... and even you can work out the rest :) .

I can see (err feel) that you are back to your snarly form; what's happened?

And just in case there is a translation difficulty, if they speak different in Palm Springs, one of the thesaurus alternatives will surely be recognised:
"tangled, baffling, problematic, convoluted, tortuous, gnarled, knotty, tough, involved, knobbed, snarled, knotted, elusive, problematical, gnarly"
Nonsense. The selection of hull shape is one of the simplest and cheapest parts of the whole design process. Reuse of hull shape designs is driven primarily by hydrostatics not finances.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

NickC wrote:@MikeKiloPapa
CSC full load displacement 9,400t, light 7,800t, deadweight 1,600t, deadweight doesn't look an outlier compared with FFG-62 figures 7,400t FLD, 6,100t LWD, 1,300t DW and Iver Huitfeldt 6650t FLD, 5450t LWD 1,200t DW
Its an outlier when you compare the deadweight as a ratio of the FL displacements, i still have a real hard time squaring how CSC manages to be a full 2000t heavier than FFG-62 , despite almost identical dimensions and very similar sensor and weapons fit-out. :think:

The OMT/DALO April 2014 presentation on the Iver Huitfeldt quoted displacement as 5,462t light and 6,649t full, deadweight 1,200t
Actually it didnt, ....in fact you wont find any credible source listing IHs lightship displacement....what all the official presentations from NTD/OMT ect quotes is design displacement, which is NOT the same as lightship. In a fully equipped combat role the IHs deadweight is 1330ish metric tonnes IIRC, which ,assuming a lightship weight of 5462t, would give a FL displacement of ~6800t! ...or well above the design max and leaving little growth margin.( FWIW wrt to margins, the IH platform was designed to accomodate a 10% increase in lightship displacement through life) .
So its safe to say that the design weight includes a lot of stuff that isnt normally a part of lightship displacement, which for IH is presumably very close to T31s ie around 5000t.....BUT tbh i have never actually seen an official figure corroborating that. However early design drafts of what would become the Absalon class mentioned lightship displacement of +4500t so 5000ish for IH sounds plausible.

I think at this point in the discussion its important to note that , unlike commercial vessels, warships displacement standards are NOT well defined, and more importantly they are not similar but varies from navy to navy. That means that Full Load displacements are essentially arbitrary figures, depending upon the requirements regarding stability margins, reserve buoyancy , damaged stability, seakeeping etc of the individual navy/country.

So displacement comparisons will always be a case of apples to oranges. Perhaps to a certain extent, even between T31 and IH. That said though , im willing to bet my left nut that the 5700ton quoted for T31 is in fact standard displacement and not full load(despite Babcocks website saying otherwise) ....there is simply no reason why it would have so much lower FL weight,... if anything it should have MORE stability margins to play with due to the absence of IHs heavy radars/masts and featuring the same broad beam hull with its low set and heavy propulsion machiney giving it a very low COG.
.
Why is the T31 550t lighter than IH?
Because it probably isnt ...give or take a hundred tons.
T31 is not fitted with IH weapon systems, 32 Mk41 VLS cells for SM-2's, 24 Mk 56 VLS cells for ESSMs, Harpoon Block II launchers, 2x2 LWT launchers, larger guns 2x 76mm plus Millennium 35mm,.... hull mounted sonar, SMART L and APAR
None of which is included in Lightship displacement and thus irrelevant. All of the above is part of the deadweight.

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: selection of hull shape is one of the simplest and cheapest parts of the whole design process.
As you say that
... you have actually put yourself into a paperback; and :) pulled the drawstring tightly closed.

Let me put a couple of simple questions, so that we can see if :crazy: you can fight your way out of the bag:

How many years did it take for the T26 hull shape and propulsion combination to get finalised?

Then next (as I proposed, and you - in rude turns of language - protest against):

For the AAW version, would it make sense to take this design, and then just start to load it with differently purposed dead weight?

So no swearing or personal insults, please. Over here we do 'nice' conversation... over here being on these islands. The answers are
- one number (a year count), and
- a Yes or a No to the second question.

As we always say, whatever the odds: Good luck!
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: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

More good news!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... roops-cut/

It will announce that HMS Trent, an offshore patrol vessel, will operate from Gibraltar later this year, where she will be able to support Nato operations in the Mediterranean, as well as work with North African partners and support counter-piracy operations in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of West Africa.

It will be the first time a vessel has been based permanently in the British Overseas Territory and will represent the new approach, which Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, has described as "globally engaged, constantly campaigning and forward deployed".

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:It will be the first time a vessel has been based permanently in the British Overseas Territory and will represent the new approach
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_H

:-)

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Poiuytrewq wrote:More good news!
It's not good news, it's a gimmick.

She's sometimes going to operate from somewhere that's less than three days sail from where she already operates from.

It's like the time crackpot Williamson announced HMS Severn was going to be based in Cardiff and Tyne was going to be based in Newcastle.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

RichardIC wrote:
It's not good news, it's a gimmick.
Nope, it good news. Forward basing one RB2 in Gibraltar makes complete sense.
She's sometimes going to operate from somewhere that's less than three days sail from where she already operates from.
In which case HMS Trent will arrive were she is needed 3 days faster. All good.

Forward basing one RB2 in Gibraltar one RB2 in the Falklands and keeping the remaining three in the UK EEZ when the RB1's are decommissioned is clear sighted IMO.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote: selection of hull shape is one of the simplest and cheapest parts of the whole design process.
As you say that
... you have actually put yourself into a paperback; and :) pulled the drawstring tightly closed.

Let me put a couple of simple questions, so that we can see if :crazy: you can fight your way out of the bag:

How many years did it take for the T26 hull shape and propulsion combination to get finalised?

Then next (as I proposed, and you - in rude turns of language - protest against):

For the AAW version, would it make sense to take this design, and then just start to load it with differently purposed dead weight?

So no swearing or personal insults, please. Over here we do 'nice' conversation... over here being on these islands. The answers are
- one number (a year count), and
- a Yes or a No to the second question.

As we always say, whatever the odds: Good luck!
1. The lengthy T26 gestation had zero to do with selecting the shape of its hull.

2. I can think of no good reason why the T26 hull shape would be reused for the T46 as opposed to any other. And several reasons why it would be a bad choice. One thing against it is that it's at its L/D limit so stretching is out of the question. A larger T46 is likely given its probable increased demand for electricity generation.

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:1. The lengthy T26 gestation had zero to do with selecting the shape of its hull.

2. I can think of no good reason why the T26 hull shape would be reused for the T46 as opposed to any other. And several reasons why it would be a bad choice. One thing against it is that it's at its L/D limit so stretching is out of the question. A larger T46 is likely given its probable increased demand for electricity generation.
One wrong answer, two good considerations, and a statement that we could start to put bets on... may I be the one who builds 'the book' :)
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)

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Clive F »

Re T83. (as speculation not news so on this thread). Why does it require ASW abilities etc. These will drive up cost and size for little use or benefit (inc extra crew which are in short supply).
The T26 is optimised for ASW and as can be seen from our US friends (Arleigh Burke's) the ASW bit doesn't get practised very often (on "multi skilled" ships) so is less effective, as it likes doing the sexy AAW stuff.
Make it focused on AAW. No Admiral accommodation, no helicopter, no NGFS. It just needs to stop stuff flying thro' the air hitting the carrier (and rest of task force).

Having said that the T26 should have been focused on ASW not fancy guns and "mission decks". Or the T31 should have been pure ASW and the T26 cruises around the world on their tod.

I suspect the T32 looks more thought thro', A "self protecting" Frigate that clears mines using off board "stuff".

End of ramblings, back to work.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Isn't the T-26 supposed to be "Self protecting" using its Mission Bay to launch the necessary UUVs etc. If not what is the Mission Bay for? I still think the T-32 should be a full fat version of the T-31, the ship certainly has space to be made far more capable and this would give the Shipyards building the T-31 a seamless extension of at least another five hulls. A few alterations like larger recesses and davits for larger craft to be launched and retrieved would be a good idea, so joining the two on the starboard side would be a good start. Surely this is the most cost effective way of getting the T-31 in the water rather than a clean sheet design.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Clive F wrote:Make it focused on AAW. No Admiral accommodation, no helicopter, no NGFS. It just needs to stop stuff flying thro' the air hitting the carrier (and rest of task force).

Having said that the T26 should have been focused on ASW not fancy guns and "mission decks". Or the T31 should have been pure ASW and the T26 cruises around the world on their tod.
Well, the T31 is not ASW in any shape or form (yet, though the Danes have put a tail on theirs)
... but More To The Point I am hearing disturbing noises of going back to the Global Cruiser mode - when just securing the MTF is far off (into the future)
Lord Jim wrote:using its Mission Bay to launch the necessary UUVs etc. If not what is the Mission Bay for?
No, no, it is for RM forays into foreign lands
- though we have come more to our senses now, and will be using an Albion + a Bay as a tripwire and as first responders, instead
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Type 32 needs to be all about protection of the littoral response groups to watch over the LPD/ LSD's to free up type 45's which until now have been doing the job and to this end should be fitted with

1 x 127mm gun for NGFS
2 x 40mm for local area defence
60 x CAMM or CAMM-ER for local area air defence
16 x NSM for over the horizon strike both sea and land

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Tempest414 wrote:Type 32 needs to be all about protection of the littoral response groups to watch over the LPD/ LSD's to free up type 45's which until now have been doing the job and to this end should be fitted with

1 x 127mm gun for NGFS
2 x 40mm for local area defence
60 x CAMM or CAMM-ER for local area air defence
16 x NSM for over the horizon strike both sea and land
vs the far north and the Russian undersea menace.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

RichardIC wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Type 32 needs to be all about protection of the littoral response groups to watch over the LPD/ LSD's to free up type 45's which until now have been doing the job and to this end should be fitted with

1 x 127mm gun for NGFS
2 x 40mm for local area defence
60 x CAMM or CAMM-ER for local area air defence
16 x NSM for over the horizon strike both sea and land
vs the far north and the Russian undersea menace.
In terms of the LRG op's in Littoral waters ASW and MCM would be carried out by USV's from the LPD / LSD the type 32 could also carry a towed sonar and would still carry a helicopter capable of carrying torpedoes out side of this a type 26 would be needed

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:... but More To The Point I am hearing disturbing noises of going back to the Global Cruiser mode - when just securing the MTF is far off (into the future
Well I suppose if the T-32 ends up being a leaner T-26 or more like a 21st Century T-23, and the T-31 is brought up to a higher spec, these together with the T-45/83 would provide an adequate escort group for the Carrier on duty, freeing up the T-26 if that was the route chosen and funded.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Clive F wrote:Having said that the T26 should have been focused on ASW not fancy guns and "mission decks". Or the T31 should have been pure ASW and the T26 cruises around the world on their tod.
And ignore the hard earned lessons of the Falklands that single role warships are not the way to go?

How soon they forget.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Clive F wrote:I suspect the T32 looks more thought thro', A "self protecting" Frigate that clears mines using off board "stuff".
Why use a frigate for mine clearing?? Makes no sense.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Especially when you do not have sufficient Frigates to start with! :mrgreen:

Post Reply