Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Repulse]

AS we are building forward deployment stations in Bahrain and Singapore in order to establish a forward presence in these areas, would it be an idea to actually build the T-31e as a true Corvette rather than a wanabe Frigate? Can we build a decent Corvette for the budget allocated to the T-31e?

Completely agree you call it Corvette, I call it a Multirole Sloop. Now if only we had a supplier with recent experience of building a Corvette for a customer in one of the regions you describe... maybe they can even use it as the starting point for their T31 bid

[donald_of_tokyo]

AS we are building forward deployment stations in Bahrain and Singapore in order to establish a forward presence in these areas, would it be an idea to actually build the T-31e as a true Corvette rather than a wanabe Frigate? Can we build a decent Corvette for the budget allocated to the T-31e?

Completely agree you call it Corvette, I call it a Multirole Sloop. Now if only we had a supplier with recent experience of building a Corvette for a customer in one of the regions you describe... maybe they can even use it as the starting point for their T31 bid

Al Khareef class corvette, ordered by Oman, from Vickers and then completed by BAES very recently (only 7-8 years ago).

Oh! It is now renamed Leander as a new brand, primed by BAE and supported by Cammel Laird.

Perfect solution ?

[jedibeeftrix]

AS we are building forward deployment stations in Bahrain and Singapore in order to establish a forward presence in these areas, would it be an idea to actually build the T-31e as a true Corvette rather than a wanabe Frigate? Can we build a decent Corvette for the budget allocated to the T-31e? I don't like the idea of having us aspire to be a global presence until we are ready and have the assets, but building four or five decent Corvettes (with good resale values) to deploy forward, effectively operate with allies and bringing proper warfighting capabilities maybe a way forward. Later on with an enlarged Royal Navy these could be replaced by true Escorts and sold on.

for me this comes back to the question of whether they going to have a unit cost of £250m (advertised) or a real unit cost of £375m (suspected)...

.. and if its the latter, would you really still choose to spend the total budget line the same way as when we we're all discussing the problem:
"well how many T26 can you fit into a £1.25b pot of money?"

It is interesting to compare the idea of ordering warships in small batches to how the Typhoon programme was carried out. Each batch was an evolutionary step forward with work being continuously done to improve the plane....

...If we repeat the T-26 debacle, taking nearly 25 years just to agree on a design for the replacement of the T-23 and only recently beginning their construction, at an artificially slow rate to match the funding available.

We'd have spent twenty years procuring a fleet of eighty batch 1 Typhoons, and then spent the last 20% of the budget procuring a further forty Gripen for UK/FI/Cyp air-defence...?

[Aethulwulf]

"The first operational deployment, in 2021 (CSG21), is anticipated to include the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Pacific. CSG21 will be by far the largest and most powerful task group assembled by the RN for some time. QE will be escorted by 2 Type 45 destroyers, 2 Type 23 frigates, an SSN, a Tide-class tanker and RFA Fort Victoria. F-35Bs of 617 Squadron and a USMC squadron will be embarked. Full Operating Capability (FOC) with all-UK jets is planned for 2023."

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-qu ... irst-time/

[SD67]

AS we are building forward deployment stations in Bahrain and Singapore in order to establish a forward presence in these areas, would it be an idea to actually build the T-31e as a true Corvette rather than a wanabe Frigate? Can we build a decent Corvette for the budget allocated to the T-31e?

Completely agree you call it Corvette, I call it a Multirole Sloop. Now if only we had a supplier with recent experience of building a Corvette for a customer in one of the regions you describe... maybe they can even use it as the starting point for their T31 bid

Al Khareef class corvette, ordered by Oman, from Vickers and then completed by BAES very recently (only 7-8 years ago).

Oh! It is now renamed Leander as a new brand, primed by BAE and supported by Cammel Laird.

Perfect solution ?

I think if the Navy wanted a Corvette they could have just taken Khareef - add CAAM and build. They clearly want something more which is why BAE felt the need to stretch Khareef to Leander. Personally I think the OPV make work contract should have been Khareef not River and T26 mass produced on a greenfield site but hey ho we are where we are

[Tempest414]

IF we are to be able to build warships in the numbers the Royal Navy will need in the future we have to have a long term plan for naval construction. We need to look at how other nations are running their programmes and be willing to invest and pay the inescapable higher up front costs to secure a sustainable warship construction industry at all its levels.

As i said last year we really need to have a funded 30 year ship building plan that is signed up to by all parties in Westminster and it should be funded to the tune of 1 billion per year with 750 million coming from the MOD and 250 million coming from other departments. As I have have also said in the past for this we should be able to get

15 x tier 1 escorts one every two years @ 450 million per year
6 x tier 2 escorts one every 2 years @ 160 million per year
12 x MHPC one each year @ 150 million
3 x SSS one every 2 years @ 200 million per year
4 x LPD one every 2 years @ 200 million per year
1 x LPH / LHD built over 4 years @ 200 million per year

from year 1 to 12 we would build ) 6 tier 1 escorts , 6 tier 2 escorts , 3 SSS , 3 LPDs cost per year 810 million

And in years 13 to 30 we would build 9 tier 1 escorts , 12 MHPC , 1 LPD/ LPH/ LHD cost per year 800 million

this leaves 200 million per year in the budget for investment in yards and cost over runs and inflation cross the 30 years

[Tempest414]

Seeing as the current plan is alleged to be 8 x T26, followed by 8 x T45 replacement, along with 5 x T31, all you are suggesting is that there is enough extra money for one additional T26.

If all we get out of the mini spending review is enough additional cash for a single extra T26 (say £800m), then, leaving aside the personnel issues (and at the risk of being burnt as a heretic), I would not order an additional T26. I would order an additional T31 (for 6 in total) and spend the balance (say £500m) on building two as the best ASW platform they can be and two as the best AAW platform that they can be, leaving two in the GP role. That way we effectively get an additional hull and four extra high-end vessels, rather than one ultra high-end.

If that proved impractical for technical reasons, then I would want three additional T31 (for eight total), leaving the top end vessels to concentrate on the CBG/ TAPS/ CASD, with the occasional one available for other tasks.

And as long as we can get the manpower sorted I would be happy with this outcome. However what I would be pushing for would one extra T26 and 10 type 45 replacement

[Repulse]

I think if the Navy wanted a Corvette they could have just taken Khareef - add CAAM and build. They clearly want something more which is why BAE felt the need to stretch Khareef to Leander.

You are correct, but offered a “frigate” they said yes please, and the RFI is for something the size of a frigate, but not the systems - call it a large light corvette. However, now that there is a requirement for forward basing in the Gulf/Indian Ocean and Singapore then actually I’d say a more heavily armed / smaller ship would actually be a better fit for the role (but less flexible to be part of a Blue Water CSG).

[Caribbean]

And as long as we can get the manpower sorted I would be happy with this outcome. However what I would be pushing for would one extra T26 and 10 type 45 replacement

Yes - the manpower issue is probably the most pressing, though it does seem to be improving. From the various comments made by people who should know, it seems that they may be on the way to sorting the sea-going manpower issues, though possibly at the expense of support numbers.

Much as I would love to see 10 x T26 and 10 x T45, I don't think it's going to happen (or not for a very long time, at least). At that level, we would be able to deploy two CBGs at the same time, if needed and possibly an amphibious group as well, using the T31s (if suitably upgraded). That would require somewhere in the region of £4.5-5b. The beauty of my "cunning plan" (I would pat myself on the back, but I'd probably dislocate a shoulder just thinking about it) is that we could probably deploy either two CBGs or one CBG and the ARG for the very modest sum of £800m or so

[Poiuytrewq]

Does anyone know if RN's SSN launched TLAM's (that are being updated to provide an enhanced 'Maritime Strike' capability) are Mk41 compatible? If so, why the need for an Interim-Surface Ship Guided Weapon (I-SSGW) on the T26's?

Could the 5 sets from the ASW T23's actually be destined for the five T31's after all?

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/imps ... s-hit-new/

[Lord Jim]

The TLAM is a different weapon from the recently reintroduced (or soon will be) anti ship version of the Tomahawk. I believe that besides the different guidance package it also has a different warhead. AS for whether the TT launched version of TLAM is the same as the VLS version I am sure there are differences there but also that the former could be converted into the latter for a price, but given how few we have we would probably do better to simply purchase of even lease a number of the latter for the T-26 until the FCASW wonder weapon arrives.

[donald_of_tokyo]

for me this comes back to the question of whether they going to have a unit cost of £250m (advertised) or a real unit cost of £375m (suspected)...

Minister for Defence Procurement has recently confirmed it is £250m average.
As you know, GFE cost and some of the risks (maybe exchange rate etc) are now back to MOD. The latter makes so-so big difference (may be 5-10% of imported equipment/license costs). But, it is the only difference after RFI fixed cost 1.25B GBP aim.

"well how many T26 can you fit into a £1.25b pot of money?"

I think people sometimes forget the number.
- 1.25B GBP is the building (including first-year support and training) contract for 5 hulls.
- 1.5B GBP is the total cost related to T31e. Another 250M GBP of "other related costs" (do not know what it is). This is clearly stated in official document, but seldom used.

And, I think RN can fit TWO Type-26 1st-rate frigates with 1.5B GBP, thanks to the learning curve established by the currently planned 8 hulls.

[jedibeeftrix]

Minister for Defence Procurement has recently confirmed it is £250m average.
As you know, GFE cost and some of the risks (maybe exchange rate etc) are now back to MOD. The latter makes so-so big difference (may be 5-10% of imported equipment/license costs). But, it is the only difference after RFI fixed cost 1.25B GBP aim.

And, I think RN can fit TWO Type-26 1st-rate frigates with 1.5B GBP, thanks to the learning curve established by the currently planned 8 hulls.

Yes, I have since read this too.

As such, I find my belief only further reinforced that T31 conceived as a cut-price frigate to be a crashingly stupid mistake, that:
1. Will jeopardise the maximum fleet growth of real escorts delivering specialist capabilities required for power projection
2. Will jeopardise the potential of MHCP as a cheap sea-control platform delivering specialist capabilities via USV packages

That we should have picked Leander over A140, because:
1. As a smaller and leaner package it will have been cheaper to procure and to operate
2. It wouldn't have been a christmas tree for everyone to decorate with their fantasy unfunded FFBNW upgrades
3. It would be a better USV mothership in having longer davits and keeping the mission space aligned with davits/hanger
4. Its leaner costs and wider applicability to the USV would have maximised both the scale of MHCP [and] of sea-control

All this being said - inc Defence reaching 2.1% of GDP - i think we'd be better served by:
1. Something that is not A140, or;
2. Scrapping the T31 concept entirely, and redirecting the cash into T26 numbers, and;
3. Accelerating a real MHCP program for USV's [and] a cheap sea-control platform**


** Five oversized grey barges are not going to control a lot of sea, especially not if two of them have to be fitted with not-as-good-as-T26 ASW capabilities to make up for the lack of.... T26's!

[Tempest414]

** Five oversized grey barges are not going to control a lot of sea, especially not if two of them have to be fitted with not-as-good-as-T26 ASW capabilities to make up for the lack of.... T26's!

A-140 is far from a grey barge its base hull form is a proven frigate design capable of 18 knots on one engine with a shaft trailing 25 knots on two engines and 30 knots in 120 seconds with all four running it is also capable of covering almost 10,000 nautical miles it is able to host all NATO and allied helicopters up to Chinook and hangar all naval helicopters up to Merlin. If fitted with a 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM and the I-SSGW it will have more fire power than a Type 23 plus if fitted with a Hull mounted sonar and carrying a ASW Merlin it would have good ASW capability not up to T-23/ 26 standard but on a par with a lot of NATO and other ships used for ASW.

I am not saying Leander is a bad ship far from it but it also has its limits with one of them being the lack of a Merlin hangar

[Repulse]

If fitted with a 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM and the I-SSGW it will have more fire power than a Type 23

Remove the wishful thinking on the I-SSGW (which is completely unfunded) and then review again. This is why the T31 and the A140 in particular is dangerous - it offers the potential that will never materialise without significantly more money (to fund equipment and numbers to get the ROI) taking money away from real capabilities.

[donald_of_tokyo]

A-140 ... is able to host all NATO and allied helicopters up to Chinook and hangar all naval helicopters up to Merlin. If fitted with a 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM and the I-SSGW it will have more fire power than a Type 23 plus if fitted with a Hull mounted sonar and carrying a ASW Merlin it would have good ASW capability not up to T-23/ 26 standard but on a par with a lot of NATO and other ships used for ASW.

A hull mounted sonar will not contribute a lot in ASW. It will contribute in some conditions only. If not, why RN admire more about many light frigates and corvettes equipped with hull sonar existing world wide. For example, if A69 aviso (or corvette) is a good ASW asset, why not RN build it in number? It surely do contribute in ASW, but in limited condition. (for example, A69 is optimized for shallow water ASW. No problem, it was so-so good at it).

Merlin is good, but there is not enough Merlin, anyhow. To carry a Merlin on A140 T31e, you need to rob it from a T26 or a CV-air-wing. A single Merlin on a A140 deployed in singleton will not make big contribution, because it can fly only ~4-6 hours a day. Merlin coupled with CAPTAS, or a fleet of 8-9 Merlins, are key assets for ASW. The former is "T23ASW and T26", and the latter is CVF air-wing itself. If the A140 is not in singleton, there are many assets which can embark Merlin. (Note that, not saying vessel number is enough, just saying RN do not have so many Merlin).

So, T31e being Merlin capable resides in "better be" and not "critically important".

I am not saying Leander is a bad ship far from it but it also has its limits with one of them being the lack of a Merlin hangar

No objection. My point is, I do not expect T31e to even reach the Leander limit in its operation. Therefore, A140 and Leander is the same for T31e. But, I do expect T31e to carry USV in 10-20 years future, so the small boat-bays of A140 is a big concern (but also NOT critical. Sorry to say, but autonomous USV in 11-12 m size, will also not be cheap. Carrying one on T31e just means robbing one from MHC, LSD, T26 or River B2. The same to Merlin for A140).

[donald_of_tokyo]

Remove the wishful thinking on the I-SSGW (which is completely unfunded) and then review again. This is why the T31 and the A140 in particular is dangerous - it offers the potential that will never materialise without significantly more money (to fund equipment and numbers to get the ROI) taking money away from real capabilities.

Agree. This is the political very big risk of adopting A140 for T31e. Big risk, I agree. Fingers crossed that RN can save T26 from being "replaced" by A140 in future, a gray nice looking hull with only a fraction of cost of T26, but also only a fraction in its capability...

Big risk. The largest concern for me on A140 as T31e (A140 itself is not that bad).

[jedibeeftrix]

I am not saying Leander is a bad ship far from it but it also has its limits with one of them being the lack of a Merlin hangar

I'm not saying a140 is a bad ship, but it is going to have bad consequences for specialised escorts and MHCP/USV's.

[abc123]

Fingers crossed that RN can save T26 from being "replaced" by A140 in future, a gray nice looking hull with only a fraction of cost of T26, but also only a fraction in its capability...

On the other hand, and I know that this is a heretical thought here, but would that be so horrible?
I mean, first 3 Type 26 are fixed in stone. i presume that at least 3 more are also.
But that last 2, if they will spend that 1,5 bln. to buy one or two more A140 and properly arm all 6-7 of them, would that be so horrible?

After all, wasn't the T26 intended as 300-500 mil. pounds frigate?

[Repulse]

On the other hand, and I know that this is a heretical thought here, but would that be so horrible?

I guess only if you are the poor sod who has to be onboard when there is a war against a peer nation.

[abc123]

On the other hand, and I know that this is a heretical thought here, but would that be so horrible?

I guess only if you are the poor sod who has to be onboard when there is a war against a peer nation.

That didn't save RN ships in Falklands. And I'm sure that the RN brass trumpeted these ships as "world beating" as today. I mean, they screwed up with the propulsion of T45, but we should believe them everything else?

[Repulse]

That didn't save RN ships in Falklands. And I'm sure that the RN brass trumpeted these ships as "world beating" as today. I mean, they screwed up with the propulsion of T45, but we should believe them everything else?

I tend to ignore the word “World Beating” as it is normally newspaper or political talk. I also think the RN learnt a number of lessons from the Falklands, like not designing ships with a single mission in mind (like high flying Russian aircraft without ASuW missiles like Exocet). Currently no one in the RN (as far as I know) is touting the T31 as something that would be in the first in the front line for a hot war. Problem is Politicians do not understand the difference- we need a minimum of 8 ASW T26s if not more.

[abc123]

That didn't save RN ships in Falklands. And I'm sure that the RN brass trumpeted these ships as "world beating" as today. I mean, they screwed up with the propulsion of T45, but we should believe them everything else?

I tend to ignore the word “World Beating” as it is normally newspaper or political talk. I also think the RN learnt a number of lessons from the Falklands, like not designing ships with a single mission in mind (like high flying Russian aircraft without ASuW missiles like Exocet). Currently no one in the RN (as far as I know) is touting the T31 as something that would be in the first in the front line for a hot war. Problem is Politicians do not understand the difference- we need a minimum of 8 ASW T26s if not more.

Ah yes, so T45 isn't one mission? Ocean without a dock, Bay without a hanger, Albion without a hanger, Astute without a VLS, F-35 without ASM etc.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Ah yes, so T45 isn't one mission? Ocean without a dock, Bay without a hanger, Albion without a hanger, Astute without a VLS, F-35 without ASM etc.

I think it is all two fold.

For 1st-rate war-fighting mission = all good
- T45 is single mission AAW specialist. Good. Putting ASW assets on noisy hull is not optimal, and making AAW asset quiet hull make its number reduced by 30%. (6-->4 hulls)
- Ocean is a single mission LPH. Good, because a well-dock on LPH do not work on 1st-day of landing (*1). It will never be near the beach in the 1st-day.
- Bay is a logistic landing specialist. Great. Good.
- Albion will be with Ocean or CVF in amphibious operations. No problem. Good.
- Astute do not need VLS, it carries many torpedos and missiles. Good.

But, for peace time operations = depends
- T45 is good. I see no problem. Good.
- Ocean shall better have at least a steal beach with mexefloats, so that in singleton she can land heavy assets in HADR operations. Not so good.
- Bay shall better have a helo hangar for HADR and anti-drug operations...., oh, she already has it (although plastic), now there is no problem. Good.
- Albion shall better have a helo hangar for HADR. Not so good.
- Astute do not need VLS for peace-time information gathering, SSBN and CVTF escort tasks. Good.

So, from my point of view, all these assets are optimized for 1st-rate war-fighting. But, for peace-time operations, Ocean and Albion shall be better with steal-beach and hangar added, respectively, but all other assets are well designed.

This is just my opinion, and do understand other standpoints can exist.

*1 Even in USN, their LHD carries LCU, not LCAC in the newest plan. So, the well dock is for 2nd-wave landing (can be slow), not 1st-wave (must be fast).

[abc123]

Ah yes, so T45 isn't one mission? Ocean without a dock, Bay without a hanger, Albion without a hanger, Astute without a VLS, F-35 without ASM etc.

I think it is all two fold.

For 1st-rate war-fighting mission = all good
- T45 is single mission AAW specialist. Good. Putting ASW assets on noisy hull is not optimal, and making AAW asset quiet hull make its number reduced by 30%. (6-->4 hulls)
- Ocean is a single mission LPH. Good, because a well-dock on LPH do not work on 1st-day of landing (*1). It will never be near the beach in the 1st-day.
- Bay is a logistic landing specialist. Great. Good.
- Albion will be with Ocean or CVF in amphibious operations. No problem. Good.
- Astute do not need VLS, it carries many torpedos and missiles. Good.

But, for peace time operations = depends
- T45 is good. I see no problem. Good.
- Ocean shall better have at least a steal beach with mexefloats, so that in singleton she can land heavy assets in HADR operations. Not so good.
- Bay shall better have a helo hangar for HADR and anti-drug operations...., oh, she already has it (although plastic), now there is no problem. Good.
- Albion shall better have a helo hangar for HADR. Not so good.
- Astute do not need VLS for peace-time information gathering, SSBN and CVTF escort tasks. Good.

So, from my point of view, all these assets are optimized for 1st-rate war-fighting. But, for peace-time operations, Ocean and Albion shall be better with steal-beach and hangar added, respectively, but all other assets are well designed.

This is just my opinion, and do understand other standpoints can exist.

*1 Even in USN, their LHD carries LCU, not LCAC in the newest plan. So, the well dock is for 2nd-wave landing (can be slow), not 1st-wave (must be fast).

Even a US Navy, the strongest and most numerous navy in the world, tries to make their vessels as multi-role as possible. With some exceptions.
So, LHDs: After Iwo Jima class, Tarawa, Wasp all have dock. Even Batch II America will have them, because they have seen that they have made a folly.
LPDs: San Antonio- has hanger, not rubber for single Wildcat but a real one for more than one helicopter. Same with Austin class and even old Raleigh.
OK, LSDs have them not, but that's an exception to the rule.
USN could also build their last Flight II LA class subs and Virginias not to carry VLS, but they have chosen not to do so. And they can carry a lot of torpedos too.
Burke class destroyers are, as people here say, so-so ASW optimised. Not the top of the line, but so-so. But, the USN is happy to live with that impairment.

What I want to say is- if the USN tries to have their ships as much as possible multi-purpose ( with some exceptions ) then the RN with it's far smaller numbers of ships HAS to have them multi-purpose as much as possible- with no exceptions. Maybe not top-notch in all areas, but good enough for just about everything.