Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Another hand me down that should be planned into the life of the T-31 as GFE. Removed from the T-23s as they are retired and held in storage until the T-31s begin their first overhaul in dry dock.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4076
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
If all these goodies get bolted onto the T31's at their first major refit the T32's will get cancelled IMO.
I suspect one of the reasons why RN isn't insisting on a T23 weapon/sensor fit on the T31's is due to the fear that the T32's would be cancelled immediately if such an upgrade was to become reality.
I suspect one of the reasons why RN isn't insisting on a T23 weapon/sensor fit on the T31's is due to the fear that the T32's would be cancelled immediately if such an upgrade was to become reality.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Or the more capable T-31s could be the basis for the T-32, increasing the size of the Royal Navy as has been promised, with capable vessels able to do more than one specialised role in the Gulf.
6x T-45
8x T-26
10x T31/32
It would be a start.
6x T-45
8x T-26
10x T31/32
It would be a start.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Probably earmarked for the T26's.Lord Jim wrote:Another hand me down that should be planned into the life of the T-31 as GFE. Removed from the T-23s as they are retired and held in storage until the T-31s begin their first overhaul in dry dock.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5570
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Only 8 of the 13 S2050 onboard T23 is going to be upgraded to S2150. Of course, they will be used in T26.Ron5 wrote:Probably earmarked for the T26's.Lord Jim wrote:Another hand me down that should be planned into the life of the T-31 as GFE. Removed from the T-23s as they are retired and held in storage until the T-31s begin their first overhaul in dry dock.
Remaining 5 sonars are S2050, not fully digital device. If not upgraded to S2150 standard, its technical support will stop within several years, I guess. If a hull sonar for T31 is needed, shall it be S2150? Or much cheaper one, like MFS7000? Or, even cheaper one, like Thales BlueWatcher? Or, shall T31 rely in other assets for SSK detection?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5570
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
"HMS Monmouth and Montrose will be part of proposed deal to supply Hellenic Navy with interim frigates and then Type 31s."
Sorry, a bit cynical. But,
- when UK sold HMS Ocean right after its refit, we all said "what a waste of money".
- If UK sells HMS Monmouth before any such modification, we say "terrible"?
I understand HMS Monmouth is as good as HMS Montrose. She just needs a bit of modification (the same applied to HMS Montrose).
Modification of HMS Monmouth could be simple and cheaper, as Hellenic navy may not require UK RN standard in all fields. Only good is there? What's wrong?
Sorry, a bit cynical. But,
- when UK sold HMS Ocean right after its refit, we all said "what a waste of money".
- If UK sells HMS Monmouth before any such modification, we say "terrible"?
I understand HMS Monmouth is as good as HMS Montrose. She just needs a bit of modification (the same applied to HMS Montrose).
Modification of HMS Monmouth could be simple and cheaper, as Hellenic navy may not require UK RN standard in all fields. Only good is there? What's wrong?
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Monmouth has been decommissioned and stripped of almost everything moveable, I believe, ready for scrapping. It would take a major effort to restore her to active duty. Montrose is still active
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Member
- Posts: 86
- Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5570
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Doesn't matter. When in modernization, you naturally strip off most of your equipments. Gun, radar, SatCom, Sonar, EO-FCS, and even diesel gensets. No problem here. State of the hull structure is a big issue. It all depends on how "good" she was taken care of.Caribbean wrote:Monmouth has been decommissioned and stripped of almost everything moveable, I believe, ready for scrapping. It would take a major effort to restore her to active duty. Montrose is still active
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I'm not sure of Monmouth's state but she can't be worse than Iron Duke which was towed from Portsmouth to Devonport with a list due to taking on water while alongside in Portsmouth.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Doesn't matter. When in modernization, you naturally strip off most of your equipments. Gun, radar, SatCom, Sonar, EO-FCS, and even diesel gensets. No problem here. State of the hull structure is a big issue. It all depends on how "good" she was taken care of.Caribbean wrote:Monmouth has been decommissioned and stripped of almost everything moveable, I believe, ready for scrapping. It would take a major effort to restore her to active duty. Montrose is still active
As you say if she get's a LIFEX it would be an easier start with parts already stripped but I thought the Greeks wanted the interim frigates to cover while the existing Hydras were upgraded and before the new vessels were built.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
HMS Monmouth is a bit of a stretch, what missiles would the Hellenic Navy use in the intern if they got these frigates, if I remember right Monmouth is the only Sea Wolf ship left. I think the most likely outcome is we give them the hull, save us costs on scrapping the ship.
Also are those ships GP or ASW?
Also are those ships GP or ASW?
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
RN having two frigates less?donald_of_tokyo wrote:"What's wrong?
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…
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…
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
One is already long gone - quietly decommissioned without even a ceremony
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5570
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
A comment.
LIFEX contract for "13" T23 was there (with Babcock). Now, HMS Monmouth are not going to get it, so 1-unit less.
1: What happens to that money?
- speculation: May be "absorbed" by the cost increase caused by "delay" of the works?
2: What happens to the new CMS system of BAE?
- speculation: not sure
3: What happens to the SeaCeptor system prepared for her?
This might be "reused" in the GFX contract of "T31 with CAMM"? It is Babcock (both T23 LIFEX and T31), MBDA-UK and HMG. ALL stakes holders are the same.
- the software system : one of the most expensive part (including the systems integration). But can be "reused" elsewhere easily, I guess? Increasing the license from "one-set" to "five-sets" will be just welcome for MBDA-UK.
- four Launch Management Systems (LMS boxes) : You need 5 LMS boxes for 5 T31. Only need to add "one more box".
- very much speculation: This could be the main reason, why there are only 12 CAMM on each T31?
4: What happens to the 4 diesel generators contracted with MTU for HMS Monmouth?
- speculation: might be too late to retrofit them into older hulls, so will be just used as a backup? or sold? (it is a commodity, kind of)
Just a comment.
[EDIT] Looking at the fact that HMS Monmouth was kept "un touched" for nearly 2 years, I guess "not LIFEXing her" was decided months ago (may be an year ago?). In such case, it could be coupled with the timing "T31 CAMM GFX" contract signed. Just a speculation, I agree. But, anyway, the SeaCeptor systems prepared for her found a place to live, thanks to T31 CAMM contract.
Note: T31 was NOT required to be equipped with Anti-Air-Missile. It was just optimally (not mandatory, or FitToReceive), in the T31 RFI.
LIFEX contract for "13" T23 was there (with Babcock). Now, HMS Monmouth are not going to get it, so 1-unit less.
1: What happens to that money?
- speculation: May be "absorbed" by the cost increase caused by "delay" of the works?
2: What happens to the new CMS system of BAE?
- speculation: not sure
3: What happens to the SeaCeptor system prepared for her?
This might be "reused" in the GFX contract of "T31 with CAMM"? It is Babcock (both T23 LIFEX and T31), MBDA-UK and HMG. ALL stakes holders are the same.
- the software system : one of the most expensive part (including the systems integration). But can be "reused" elsewhere easily, I guess? Increasing the license from "one-set" to "five-sets" will be just welcome for MBDA-UK.
- four Launch Management Systems (LMS boxes) : You need 5 LMS boxes for 5 T31. Only need to add "one more box".
- very much speculation: This could be the main reason, why there are only 12 CAMM on each T31?
4: What happens to the 4 diesel generators contracted with MTU for HMS Monmouth?
- speculation: might be too late to retrofit them into older hulls, so will be just used as a backup? or sold? (it is a commodity, kind of)
Just a comment.
[EDIT] Looking at the fact that HMS Monmouth was kept "un touched" for nearly 2 years, I guess "not LIFEXing her" was decided months ago (may be an year ago?). In such case, it could be coupled with the timing "T31 CAMM GFX" contract signed. Just a speculation, I agree. But, anyway, the SeaCeptor systems prepared for her found a place to live, thanks to T31 CAMM contract.
Note: T31 was NOT required to be equipped with Anti-Air-Missile. It was just optimally (not mandatory, or FitToReceive), in the T31 RFI.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I'd have thought that if Babcock do win the HN contract, Montrose would get her LIFEX in a Greek yard under Babcock supervision as part of the KT / gearing up for T31 build.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
At least Montrose can be refitted as the Greeks would want as they have a blank slate so to speak, whereas Montrose having been through Life-EX may mean the Greeks would like to keep her as is, giving them two separate ship sub classes. But they are only to be loaners after all and may help the Greek decide what they would like on their T-31s if they somehow choose it over the competition.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4076
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Moved across.
Like the T32, the MRSS is, at this point, more jam tomorrow. I am very much not convinced that six Ellida type vessels is the best way to renew the UK’s Amphibious capability for the next 30 years. It may be the cheapest but certainly not the best IMO.
One of the reasons why I am not convinced about this direction of travel yet is because the FCF is still developing the concept of the LRG/LSG’s. Until the Royal Marines are sure of what capabilities and platforms are required for the coming decades then planning remains in flux. My prediction is the final analysis will show a vessel is required that looks very much like an HMS Ocean LPH (possibly LHD) albeit more modestly proportioned.
So effectively I am proposing replacing the MCM fleet around 2030 with six 130m Multi Role Logistics Vessels, scrap the T32 programme and continue building additional T31’s.
The Escort target could remain at 24 with a mix of T45/T26/T31 and the MRLV’s could take the strain with the MCM duties.
The LRG’s could be formed around the LPH’s, replenished by Joint Support Ships (built to replace the Waves) and escorted by T31’s that are fully kitted out as credible GP Frigates.
The overall fleet balance would be:
Royal Navy
2x CVF
2x LPH
6x T45
9x T26
9x T31
5x RB2
2x Multi Role Ocean Surveillance Ship
Royal Fleet Auxiliary
6x Multi Role Logistic Vessels (130m)
3x FSS
4x Tides
2x Joint Support Ships (175m, Wave replacement)
Personally I think this would be a much better direction. Current planning appears to be riddled with contradictions and an ongoing dependency to rely on Allied nations providing escorts to ensure the safety of the CSG/LRG/LSG’s.
IMO it’s time for a rethink.
Achieving a balanced fleet is of paramount importance and this is RN’s best chance for a generation to form a fleet that is balanced and efficient rather than just making the best of what survived the cuts.Tempest414 wrote:I think we need to be careful not the mix roles...
Like the T32, the MRSS is, at this point, more jam tomorrow. I am very much not convinced that six Ellida type vessels is the best way to renew the UK’s Amphibious capability for the next 30 years. It may be the cheapest but certainly not the best IMO.
One of the reasons why I am not convinced about this direction of travel yet is because the FCF is still developing the concept of the LRG/LSG’s. Until the Royal Marines are sure of what capabilities and platforms are required for the coming decades then planning remains in flux. My prediction is the final analysis will show a vessel is required that looks very much like an HMS Ocean LPH (possibly LHD) albeit more modestly proportioned.
So effectively I am proposing replacing the MCM fleet around 2030 with six 130m Multi Role Logistics Vessels, scrap the T32 programme and continue building additional T31’s.
The Escort target could remain at 24 with a mix of T45/T26/T31 and the MRLV’s could take the strain with the MCM duties.
The LRG’s could be formed around the LPH’s, replenished by Joint Support Ships (built to replace the Waves) and escorted by T31’s that are fully kitted out as credible GP Frigates.
The overall fleet balance would be:
Royal Navy
2x CVF
2x LPH
6x T45
9x T26
9x T31
5x RB2
2x Multi Role Ocean Surveillance Ship
Royal Fleet Auxiliary
6x Multi Role Logistic Vessels (130m)
3x FSS
4x Tides
2x Joint Support Ships (175m, Wave replacement)
Personally I think this would be a much better direction. Current planning appears to be riddled with contradictions and an ongoing dependency to rely on Allied nations providing escorts to ensure the safety of the CSG/LRG/LSG’s.
IMO it’s time for a rethink.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Silly question for the experts - does the "Mothership" really need to be a frigate?
https://www.rivieramm.com/opinion/opini ... yups-31156
Currently a large number of North Sea Platform Supply Vessels are laid up due to the downturn in offshore gas.
https://www.rivieramm.com/opinion/opini ... yups-31156
Currently a large number of North Sea Platform Supply Vessels are laid up due to the downturn in offshore gas.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
They could do worse than look at a variation on HNoMS Maud for vessels to fill that role. More balanced in terms of solid stores/ liquids, than the Waves (40 TEU vs 8 TEU) considerable commonality with the Tides and built in support for alongside resupply of patrol boats and submarines (in our case, large unmanned submersibles).Poiuytrewq wrote:2x Joint Support Ships (175m, Wave replacement)
As an aside and totally off topic, this is the first post that I've made on any forum, using a Pi/400, running Chrome as the browser. I'm amazed at how well it works! Gets a bit confusing with three mice (mouses?) on my desk, though
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
No, as long as you have escorts for them when they are needed to do anything with a threat level above a constabulary role.SD67 wrote:Silly question for the experts - does the "Mothership" really need to be a frigate?
”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
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
And how different is that from a Hunt or Sandown?Repulse wrote:No, as long as you have escorts for them when they are needed to do anything with a threat level above a constabulary role.SD67 wrote:Silly question for the experts - does the "Mothership" really need to be a frigate?
Alternatively if the mothership is also one of the 24 escorts then it's always taking an escort away from the rest of the fleet.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4076
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I agree, a UK tweeked Maud would be a good option and the commonality with the Tides would be a bonus.Caribbean wrote: They could do worse than look at a variation on HNoMS Maud
Best of luck with the mice!
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
First we need to look at a Hunt class it is built with naval warfare in mind and has a Type 2913 sonar , M-Cube CMS , 1 x 30mm , 2 x Miniguns , 3 x GPMG plus some have a 12.7mm HMG as well ( so more heavily armed than a B1 River class OPV )SD67 wrote:And how different is that from a Hunt or Sandown?Repulse wrote:No, as long as you have escorts for them when they are needed to do anything with a threat level above a constabulary role.SD67 wrote:Silly question for the experts - does the "Mothership" really need to be a frigate?
Alternatively if the mothership is also one of the 24 escorts then it's always taking an escort away from the rest of the fleet.
So if we took up some second hand PSV's we would be getting some hard worked civvi ships that needed a lot of refitting and redesigning
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Not much apart from the close defence weapons Tempest414 refers to. But currently we have the requirement to provide the MCMs a safe zone in which to work, which requires escorts when operating in a non benign environment. If we go with a pimped PSV design, then nothing change - though you could argue it is worst as as the PSV needs to stands off whilst it’s off board systems do the work, the area that needs to be covered is bigger (potentially requiring even more escorts).SD67 wrote:And how different is that from a Hunt or Sandown?
Alternatively if the mothership is also one of the 24 escorts then it's always taking an escort away from the rest of the fleet.
Having said that I do think a small PSV fleet (3-4) could be useful for UK waters which will have a layered defence and ability to work without escorts.
”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
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
For me ( And yes this is fantasy but could be done ) I would look forPoiuytrewq wrote:The Escort target could remain at 24 with a mix of T45/T26/T31 and the MRLV’s could take the strain with the MCM duties.
The LRG’s could be formed around the LPH’s, replenished by Joint Support Ships (built to replace the Waves) and escorted by T31’s that are fully kitted out as credible GP Frigates.
The overall fleet balance would be:
Royal Navy
2x CVF
2x LPH
6x T45
9x T26
9x T31
5x RB2
2x Multi Role Ocean Surveillance Ship
Royal Fleet Auxiliary
6x Multi Role Logistic Vessels (130m)
3x FSS
4x Tides
2x Joint Support Ships (175m, Wave replacement)
RN
2 x Carriers
2 x LHA's ( 220 x 40 meters with cat and trap for Mosquito UAV ops )
6 x T-45
8 x T-26
8 x T 31 ( full fat )
8 x MHPC ( 105 x 15 meters )
3 x River B'2
2 x MRS ships
RFA
4 x MRSS ( 160 x 28 meters )
3 x SSS
4 x Tide class
2 x Joint support ships