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 »

I like the idea of a T26 lite ASW focused lite version for a T32 contender then use them for carrier ASW escort duties, would look good for "global Britain" having the original T26 global combat ship doing what they were designed to do rather than a up armed T31 - it all comes down to money...

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

There's nothing "lite" about an ASW T26, certainly not financially... the reason T26 is so expensive is because it's the cat's meow for ASW, or so we're told... A T26 "lite" would have to ditch most of the ASW kit... we've been told that T32 will be a mothership for unmanned systems, so they'll be the GP workhorses of the fleet... T45/83 and T26 will be devoted mainly to CBG protection, T31 to overseas presence and LRG protection and T32 will be used as the true GP ships in the fleet... I think that's plainly obvious from all the statements I've seen made by official entities, anything else is fantasy fleets...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I can’t help but wonder where it’s come from that the T32s will be doing the mcm work like loads on here seem to keep implying. Have a missed some announcement on this ? If not then why are so many just assuming it and thus using this assumption as the bases of what they think should be future make up.
https://questions-statements.parliament ... -20/118499
The answer said a platform for autonomous system to ADD to ASW and MCM, if people take from that statement that the T32s are meant replace the mcm fleet then it should also be taken that they are to replace the ASW fleet.

JohnM wrote:There's nothing "lite" about an ASW T26, certainly not financially... the reason T26 is so expensive is because it's the cat's meow for ASW, or so we're told... A T26 "lite" would have to ditch most of the ASW kit... we've been told that T32 will be a mothership for unmanned systems, so they'll be the GP workhorses of the fleet... T45/83 and T26 will be devoted mainly to CBG protection, T31 to overseas presence and LRG protection and T32 will be used as the true GP ships in the fleet... I think that's plainly obvious from all the statements I've seen made by official entities, anything else is fantasy fleets...
I agree for the most part but would look to equip the T31 as a true GP platform and have the T32 to be flexible in design to operate as a LSG escort and unmanned mother ship. This is why I keep coming back to the Absalon style design as it would allow it to act as a mother ship when needed, as an LSG escort when needed adding to the over all LSG with 100 RM or acting as a SF or raiding mother ship with said RM when needed.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:Absalon style design as it would allow it to act as a mother ship when needed, as an LSG escort when needed adding to the over all LSG with 100 RM or acting as a SF or raiding mother ship with said RM when needed.
Given the apparent modest nature of the FCF concept, pulling together 3 Absalons and a Wave would constitute a pretty meaningful LSG. Hanger space for 7 Helo’s plus 4 landing spots is pretty generous. Add in ample accommodation for the EMF’s and 3 highly versatile and spacious flex decks and it warrants serious consideration as a cost effective option.

Add a Bay and an Albion to the 3 Absalons/Wave and it becomes a seriously potent Amphibious force.

IMO Absalon or possibly an A140/Absalon hybrid remains the front runner for the T32.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Would need 9 x Absalons to do that AND they would not be available as escorts. We would have fewer available than now! :idea:

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:IMO Absalon or possibly an A140/Absalon hybrid remains the front runner for the T
Absalon’s a freak. There’s a reason no-one anywhere has tried to replicate it.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Scimitar54 wrote:Would need 9 x Absalons to do that..
To do what exactly?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The Absalon has been well discussed on this thread, and I also waiver about its merits in terms of complementing the FCF and LRGs. It is a natural question given the fact that the RN is building a sister ship design.

However, my current conclusion with the MRSS is that anything above a RM Troop sized unit is best on a larger amphibious ship. In terms of 30-50 RM sized detachments all the B2 Rivers, T26s and I understand T31s would be able to accommodate.
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

JohnM wrote:There's nothing "lite" about an ASW T26, certainly not financially... the reason T26 is so expensive is because it's the cat's meow for ASW, or so we're told... A T26 "lite" would have to ditch most of the ASW kit... we've been told that T32 will be a mothership for unmanned systems, so they'll be the GP workhorses of the fleet... T45/83 and T26 will be devoted mainly to CBG protection, T31 to overseas presence and LRG protection and T32 will be used as the true GP ships in the fleet... I think that's plainly obvious from all the statements I've seen made by official entities, anything else is fantasy fleets...
Type 26 will always cost 1 billion pounds per ship and I can see the first 8 climbing up to 1.1 or 1.2 billion per ship as for the type 31 River B2 mix I see them deployed like so

2 x B2's home waters
3 x B2's 1 x FIGS , 1 x AP-N , 1 x Med
1 x T-31 Gulf
2 x T31 Indo-Pacific
2 x Home fleet

This would allow the 2 T-31's in the Indo- Pac and Home fleet to work with the LRG's and I would be looking to add to this as and when T-32 comes on line to have

3 x B2's Home waters
2 x B2's 1 x FIGS , 1 x Med
1 x T-31 Gulf
1 x T-31 AP-N
2 x T-31 & 2 x T-32 Indo Pacific
1 x T-31 & 3 x T-32 Home Fleet

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:…my current conclusion with the MRSS is that anything above a RM Troop sized unit is best on a larger amphibious ship. In terms of 30-50 RM sized detachments all the B2 Rivers, T26s and I understand T31s would be able to accommodate.
If 4 helos are required the RB2’s don’t help!

The Absalons are tempting due to their inherent versatility but without a thorough redesign and a lot of extra compartmentalisation I don’t think RN would entertain them.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: If 4 helos are required the RB2’s don’t help!
Perhaps not directly no, but:

- Not all insertions will be performed by helicopter, in fact the majority will be done via fast boat (and other insertion craft) that can more easily be accommodated on a B2 than a T31.

- With it’s Merlin capable deck it is capable of acting as a lily pad in combination with an RFA, plus it can support helicopter operations for short periods. This has been shown with the Wave + B2 combination in the Caribbean.

Lastly I read recently (but still trying to find the quote) that due to its draft the B2s were capable of operating out of hundreds of ports whereas the T26/T31 (and Absalon) is limited low tens.

The B2 River is not an answer in itself of course, but it gives additional dimensions/ options to an overall amphibious package.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414, IMO the Mediterranean, especially the eastern part, will be more interesting than you planned fleet disposition shows. I’d been looking for multiple ships based out of Gib (surveillance OPV/Sloop backed by a Survey craft and a RFA), backed up by a T26 on rotation.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:Type 26 will always cost 1 billion pounds per ship
It will be if the government continues to procure in short batches without commitment to follow on orders. I still believe if the government put its money where it’s mouth is and ordered six T26s and game BAE a grant to part finance the build of a factory it would save money in the medium to long term, and also end up with a better equipped navy!
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

RichardIC wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:IMO Absalon or possibly an A140/Absalon hybrid remains the front runner for the T
Absalon’s a freak. There’s a reason no-one anywhere has tried to replicate it.
Or is it the Absalon was ahead of it’s time, the design allows flexible use of unmanned system ( which are only just starting to really take off ) or small groups of RM/SF. As escorts to any LSG they would add the much need helo capacity as the Albion’s have none and the Bays are looking at as little as 1 if the cheaper upgrade option is chosen.

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Repulse wrote:…my current conclusion with the MRSS is that anything above a RM Troop sized unit is best on a larger amphibious ship. In terms of 30-50 RM sized detachments all the B2 Rivers, T26s and I understand T31s would be able to accommodate.
If 4 helos are required the RB2’s don’t help!

The Absalons are tempting due to their inherent versatility but without a thorough redesign and a lot of extra compartmentalisation I don’t think RN would entertain them.
The T32 doesn’t have to a off the self design lie the T31 was, I put forward an Absalon “style” design but that doesn’t mean the Absalon it’s self.


Repulse wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote: If 4 helos are required the RB2’s don’t help!
Perhaps not directly no, but:

- Not all insertions will be performed by helicopter, in fact the majority will be done via fast boat (and other insertion craft that can more easily be accommodated on a B2 than a T31.

- With it’s Merlin capable deck it is capable of acting as a lily pad in combination with an RFA, plus it can support helicopter operations for short periods. This has been shown with the Wave + B2 combination in the Caribbean.

Lastly I read recently (but still trying to find the quote) that due to its draft the B2s were capable of operating out of hundreds of ports whereas the T26/T31 (and Absalon) is limited low tens.

The B2 River is not an answer in its self of course, but it gives additional dimensions/ options to an overall amphibious package.
The problem is out side of the Bays most of the RFA will be tide to the CSG unless the waves are replaced ( if so I’d look to something more flexible again as the Tides will carry out large full RAS )

We also have to remember that once’s the RB1s go most if not all of the RB2s will be need at hone for EEZ. With all this in mind wouldn’t it be better to try and get the RB1s replace with 3 RB3s ( the Avenger design )

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:Tempest414, IMO the Mediterranean, especially the eastern part, will be more interesting than you planned fleet disposition shows. I’d been looking for multiple ships based out of Gib (surveillance OPV/Sloop backed by a Survey craft and a RFA), backed up by a T26 on rotation.
Well given what I said was only taking the River B2's and Type 31/32 in to context but if we to take what I said and add it to escort / patrol fleet as a hole then it could look like this

Home Fleet

6 x Destroyers
8 x ASW T-26
5 x type 31/32
4 x River B2's

= 23 ships

East of Suez fleet

3 x Type 31
2 x type 32

= 5 ships

South Atlantic

1 x River B2

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:donald_of_tokyo, I would agree that given the MCLSV building more T26s would be a good answer.

I would even say an alternative would be to start the build of the T83 earlier, and in larger numbers, as a multi-role Arleigh Burke class type ship, capable of AAW and ASW roles.

However, politics will not allow it and Babcock will get an order for the more ships. Hence its better to order a few more T31s but keep part of the budget to fully kit them out.
Thanks. For me, I think there are so many things for Babcock to build.

FSSS, LPD/LSD replacements, and then Wave replacement etc. I do not think UK ship building can provide enough work for THREE yards to survive. Two is enough. So, even if BAES gets "more T26" in place of T32, Babcock can survive well.

Politis must go this way. Sustainable TWO yards, than THREE shipyards for a decade, and then everything collapsing. (if you see ship building strategy, they look like know this problem, and saying "merchant ship export"... Hollow strategy...)

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 »

JohnM wrote:There's nothing "lite" about an ASW T26, certainly not financially... the reason T26 is so expensive is because it's the cat's meow for ASW, or so we're told... A T26 "lite" would have to ditch most of the ASW kit... we've been told that T32 will be a mothership for unmanned systems, so they'll be the GP workhorses of the fleet... T45/83 and T26 will be devoted mainly to CBG protection, T31 to overseas presence and LRG protection and T32 will be used as the true GP ships in the fleet... I think that's plainly obvious from all the statements I've seen made by official entities, anything else is fantasy fleets...
Only partly true. It guess it can be "as cheap as £667M", a half because of ripping off about a half of the weapon fits, and another half because it is 9th, 10th and 11th hull of T26. Learning curve.
Tempest414 wrote:Type 26 will always cost 1 billion pounds per ship and I can see the first 8 climbing up to 1.1 or 1.2 billion per ship
Why you think T26 will be kept expensive while T31/T32 can be cheap? Double standard.

If it is "because it is BAE", I cannot agree.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992 wrote:The problem is out side of the Bays most of the RFA will be tide to the CSG unless the waves are replaced ( if so I’d look to something more flexible again as the Tides will carry out large full RAS )
I expect (hope) the RFA will be reviewed against the current force structure. It is true 3 FSS and the 4 Tides will be mostly assigned to the two CBGs. It is also true that RFA ships (of some sort) are likely to be assigned to the LRGs (though it’s not clear all LRG vessels will be in the RFA).

However, if the RN still wants to be able to fulfil a tier 1 standing commitments requiring warships to operate for periods that are too complex to forward base then the Waves (or equivalent) are required. I’d argue that they are probably more valuable than a T31. Having one based in the North Atlantic (
APT(N) and another in the Indian Ocean / Horn of Africa would get my vote.

There was an option to purchase two more Tides which I suspect has expired and given the difficulties in the yard since will not be taken up. However when (the Waves are still relatively young) replacements are required it would be a good place to start.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:The problem is out side of the Bays most of the RFA will be tide to the CSG unless the waves are replaced ( if so I’d look to something more flexible again as the Tides will carry out large full RAS )
I expect (hope) the RFA will be reviewed against the current force structure. It is true 3 FSS and the 4 Tides will be mostly assigned to the two CBGs. It is also true that RFA ships (of some sort) are likely to be assigned to the LRGs (though it’s not clear all LRG vessels will be in the RFA).

However, if the RN still wants to be able to fulfil a tier 1 standing commitments requiring warships to operate for periods that are too complex to forward base then the Waves (or equivalent) are required. I’d argue that they are probably more valuable than a T31. Having one based in the North Atlantic (
APT(N) and another in the Indian Ocean / Horn of Africa would get my vote.
Oh I agree that the waves need replacing it just will they be ? Is the budget there for it and if so what for ?

IMO the ideal replacement would be 2 Karel Doormans with smaller vehicle decks to allow larger stores.
They can do both solid and liquid stores along with giving great helo facilities to any LSG, but again it all comes down to money.

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:"T26-lite based plan" might be
- building three more T26-lite with £667M each, replacing 5 inch gun and two CIWS with a 57mm gun, replace the 24-cell Mk.41 VLS with 24 cell CAMM (mount all 48 CAMM there), cut the flight deck by 5m (no need for Chinook capable), and by these two modifications enlarge the mission bay by 30-40% in its size. Looks like "T32 in heavily ASW oriented configuration"?
I like the idea of replacing the MT30 gas turbines with more diesels. Firstly the turbine is expensive and mandates an expensive main gear box. Replace with an extra pair of diesels or diesel generators would enable each screw to have a completely mechanically independent propulsion line. Seeing that the towed array speed propulsion would be the same (above waterline generators driving electric motors), no loss of stealth would occur in that mode although at high speeds the ship would most likely be noisier.

The second set of reasons would be that the very large funnel would also not be needed. The much smaller diesel uptake and downtakes could be routed to one side of a mission bay lengthened by a forward extension. Just like they are in today's T26 design for the after set.

I don't think removing the Chinook capable deck would save any significant money and the value of landing the UK's most common helicopter type seems rather obvious.

But how much money could be saved by dumbing down? Bae say the current T26's are being built for 800 million each with the prospect of a 20% reduction for future ships. Say 650 million.

Ignoring design modification costs (and leaving the hull untouched would help minimize) , could 150 million be taken out (Creating a 500m ASW frigate) by replacing gas turbines, removing main gearbox, phalanx, 5" gun, mk41 tubes and all the electronic wizardry that makes them work?

I guess I'm suggesting putting Type 31 level of kit onto a Type 26 but keeping all its ASW capability and extra CAMM plus a huge combined hanger/mission bay. Be a bit slower too.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414, at least 12 of your home fleet (6 T45 and 6 T26) will be assigned to the two CBGs. The two T26s left, are likely to be be mainly bobbing up and and down in the Atlantic on TAPS/CASD escort duties with the odd jaunt up to the Barents.

This means anything that requires a fighting warship will need to be either the CBG or a SSN.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:Type 26 will always cost 1 billion pounds per ship and I can see the first 8 climbing up to 1.1 or 1.2 billion per ship as for the type 31 River B2 mix I see them deployed like so
Bae says 800 million now coming down 20% over time.

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:If it is "because it is BAE", I cannot agree.
Ask BAE to build a batch of FIVE T26’s as fast and as cost effectively as possible and we would soon see most of the inflated costs are Treasury induced.
Ron5 wrote:I'm suggesting putting Type 31 level of kit onto a Type 26 but keeping all its ASW capability and extra CAMM plus a huge combined hanger/mission bay. Be a bit slower too.
When the T32 competition starts this is exactly what I expect BAE will do. No modified Leander variant will be suitable for T32.

Expect the competition to start only after the remaining five T26’s have been ordered. If BAE can build a T26 derived multipurpose Frigate for £500m, Babcock need to concentrate on building Amphibs.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:If it is "because it is BAE", I cannot agree.
Ask BAE to build a batch of FIVE T26’s as fast and as cost effectively as possible and we would soon see most of the inflated costs are Treasury induced.
Ron5 wrote:I'm suggesting putting Type 31 level of kit onto a Type 26 but keeping all its ASW capability and extra CAMM plus a huge combined hanger/mission bay. Be a bit slower too.
When the T32 competition starts this is exactly what I expect BAE will do. No modified Leander variant will be suitable for T32.

Expect the competition to start only after the remaining five T26’s have been ordered. If BAE can build a T26 derived multipurpose Frigate for £500m, Babcock need to concentrate on building Amphibs.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

I wish I could ask you to sketch a t26 lite along the lines I suggested ;)

Post Reply