Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Clearly the UXV Combatant needs to return. Clearly a practical and simple design. ;)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

RetroSicotte wrote:Clearly the UXV Combatant needs to return. Clearly a practical and simple design. ;)
Could that be so far fetched down the line ?
Of course this could only happen with an increasing in funding but if so would it be the right way to go ?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Jake1992 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Clearly the UXV Combatant needs to return. Clearly a practical and simple design. ;)
Could that be so far fetched down the line ?
Of course this could only happen with an increasing in funding but if so would it be the right way to go ?
The idea of a catapult launched Taranis-like drone off the back of the ship is so far fetched from current intents that it was more a jest. In future, it's entirely viable.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Clearly the UXV Combatant needs to return. Clearly a practical and simple design. ;)
Could that be so far fetched down the line ?
Of course this could only happen with an increasing in funding but if so would it be the right way to go ?
The idea of a catapult launched Taranis-like drone off the back of the ship is so far fetched from current intents that it was more a jest. In future, it's entirely viable.
I don’t mean the whole design, I agree the cat launched drones is way out there but the main parts of the concept like the large V deck, moon pool and LCVP carrying and so on.

How much do you think such a design would cost if we go rid of the cat launch system, had an artisan radar, 57/76mm main gun, 6-9 ExLS for 24-36 CAMM and maybe FFBNW 8-16 Mk41s.

Online
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 »

With what hull standard?
And with what level of soft kill, CMS, and data links?

It it is of frigate level, your ship will cost 1.5 or twice higher than T31e’s 250M GBP, at least.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:With what hull standard?
And with what level of soft kill, CMS, and data links?

It it is of frigate level, your ship will cost 1.5 or twice higher than T31e’s 250M GBP, at least.
If possible frigate standards would be the go to for me, CMS, soft kill and data link would be of a standard C2 level for me.

So around £500m per vessel ? If so I’d say that’s a good price for something like the UXV combatant and what it could offer.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

The Straights represent a very busy shipping lane, if only we had a Helicopter carrier, carrying a dozen or so Widcats armed with Gpmg and LLM. Oh....... :oops:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Digger22 wrote:The Straights represent a very busy shipping lane, if only we had a Helicopter carrier, carrying a dozen or so Widcats armed with Gpmg and LLM. Oh....... :oops:
Its clear now to everyone that the cuts since 2010 have gone too far. Although this mini crisis is embarrassing for the UK, it's great news for RN and those pushing for a larger fleet.

It's also interesting that the US isn't unilaterally providing security for international shipping in the area, instead insisting that other nations protect their own interests. A sign of the new normal?

As for RN's role in providing security in the area the proposed FLSS vessels would seem like a good option. Operating 3 Wildcats and 2 Merlins along with multiple small craft and the Royal Marines to go with them it would seem to be the perfect option. It would also be the perfect deployment for the proposed T31's.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Digger22 wrote: As for RN's role in providing security in the area the proposed FLSS vessels would seem like a good option. Operating 3 Wildcats and 2 Merlins along with multiple small craft and the Royal Marines to go with them it would seem to be the perfect option. It would also be the perfect deployment for the proposed T31's.
Don't agree. FLSS can be just a floating target there. Hormuz isn't the Horn of Africa or Gulf of Guinea.
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…

Online
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 »

If Wildcat or any air asset is needed, why not just use Omani-airbase?

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by inch »

I wonder if this Iran crisis will give anymore input into increase the size of the surface fleet /funding or just a another 2 minutes headlines that defence / fleet size gets forgotten soon as

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

Where is Albion? Maybe we should re activate Bulwark too? We clearly can't generate Enough Escorts so what do we send, with what we have?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

That tanker is about as British as the Hamilton (Bermuda) registered Queen Mary 2.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

abc123 wrote:Don't agree. FLSS can be just a floating target there. Hormuz isn't the Horn of Africa or Gulf of Guinea.
Floating target for what, exactly? The IRG has nothing bigger than motor boats with manually operated guns and basic (usually unguided) missile systems. Sitting ducks for Wildcat (or even Apache). T23/T26 would handle the Iranian submarine threat (particularly once we have P8 in service). Even the RFAs are having SSTD fitted now. FLSS would be equipped to RFA standard at least, meaning Phalanx, 30mm, 50 cal. and miniguns. Once Martlett and Sea Venom are in service (which they will be long before the first FLSS hits the water), the IRG marine units (and also the Iranian Navy) are effectively neutralised.
The IRG are being used, because they are seen as "deniable" (even though they really aren't). Use of the actual Iranian Forces would be a completely different matter and would precipitate a state of war, which would justify both the UK and many others in taking matters to a completely different level (and the FLSS would become part of a well-protected amphibious assault group).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: Its clear now to everyone that the cuts since 2010 have gone too far. Although this mini crisis is embarrassing for the UK, it's great news for RN and those pushing for a larger fleet. It's also interesting that the US isn't unilaterally providing security for international shipping in the area, instead insisting that other nations protect their own interests.
Agree in full and their are a lot of positives to this as well, not least in that as of yet no one has been killed. Also it shows that our foresight in re-establishing HMS Jufair in Bahrain and forward basing a T23 has already paid off in part. Sure we could have been a little faster in reinforcing Montrose as soon as we seized the tanker off Gib, and it was unlucky that in the case of the Stena Impero she was just too far away but it proves the concept works.

Actually we probably need to keep things in proportion here. At the moment we hold a very large tanker full to the gunnels with very expensive oil much needed by Iran plus an Iranian crew, while they hold a comparatively small, empty, Swedish owned vessel and as regards the crew not a Brit in sight. Sure its embarrassing for HMG and Im certain Theresa would wish it otherwise in her last week on watch but it might just remind Boris that there is more than Brexit to being PM and he also needs to focus on Defence.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:With what hull standard? And with what level of soft kill, CMS, and data links? It it is of frigate level, your ship will cost 1.5 or twice higher than T31e’s 250M GBP, at least.
Even in this respect I think we might see some positives coming out of recent events. The choice of Montrose as a GP escort to forward base would appear to be proven. With Sea Ceptor, DS30M's and 4.5 inch gun she would appear more than a match for the Boghammer's and could even have seen off their helicopter (Hip?) if push came to shove. Montrose also has Harpoon if a larger Iranian warship sought to intervene - that is of course if they have any left. Given the current threat however Montrose would seem well rounded for the task, although LMM on her Wildcat and DS30's would be nice to have had.

Clearly this also raises questions about T31, and Tobius Elwood has already gone on record as saying we may now need more, however looking at the offerings of the two major contenders, BAE and Babcock (we know nothing about the Meko ship) both seem to be similarly armed and equipped so if at the end of the programme for our £250 million plus GFE we get something looking pretty close to this, with 24 CAMM, a modern 57mm/76 mm and DS30M hopefully with LMM, whilst not being quite as capable as a T23 GP they should still be well suited for tasks in the Gulf.

Sorry, wont let me attach the image - says the board limit has been reached !

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Digger22 wrote:The Straights represent a very busy shipping lane, if only we had a Helicopter carrier, carrying a dozen or so Widcats armed with Gpmg and LLM. Oh....... :oops:
Its clear now to everyone that the cuts since 2010 have gone too far. Although this mini crisis is embarrassing for the UK, it's great news for RN and those pushing for a larger fleet.

It's also interesting that the US isn't unilaterally providing security for international shipping in the area, instead insisting that other nations protect their own interests. A sign of the new normal?

As for RN's role in providing security in the area the proposed FLSS vessels would seem like a good option. Operating 3 Wildcats and 2 Merlins along with multiple small craft and the Royal Marines to go with them it would seem to be the perfect option. It would also be the perfect deployment for the proposed T31's.
It’s interesting but I think that is a rose tinted view of it. Presently over half the escort fleet it either mothballed why ask for a bigger fleet the current one can’t be manned properly.

I think it does make a case for looking at how we proceed with littoral sea control. In the end this was 4 speed boats and helicopter maybe frigates aren’t the best way to challenge such a threat in narrow waters. Lots of soap box standing and shouting mps when changes were proposed in the defence review that never was last year should perhaps take a long hard look at themselves.

Finally perhaps we need to redefine how “British” a flag of connivence for tax purposes is. Is panama sending lots of ships to protect its tankers when one was captured? This is a Swedish ship, with a Russian crew, build if foreign lands transporting goods between foreign countries. If they want UK protection then maybe the ships should be built in the UK manned by the UK merchant navy carrying goods to or from the UK or a combination there off.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

SKB wrote:That tanker is about as British as the Hamilton (Bermuda) registered Queen Mary 2.
Bermudas are, AFAIK a British Overseas Territory. Or, is Argentina allowed to capture Falkland Islands fishing boats?
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…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Caribbean wrote:
abc123 wrote:Don't agree. FLSS can be just a floating target there. Hormuz isn't the Horn of Africa or Gulf of Guinea.
Floating target for what, exactly? The IRG has nothing bigger than motor boats with manually operated guns and basic (usually unguided) missile systems. Sitting ducks for Wildcat (or even Apache). T23/T26 would handle the Iranian submarine threat (particularly once we have P8 in service). Even the RFAs are having SSTD fitted now. FLSS would be equipped to RFA standard at least, meaning Phalanx, 30mm, 50 cal. and miniguns. Once Martlett and Sea Venom are in service (which they will be long before the first FLSS hits the water), the IRG marine units (and also the Iranian Navy) are effectively neutralised.
The IRG are being used, because they are seen as "deniable" (even though they really aren't). Use of the actual Iranian Forces would be a completely different matter and would precipitate a state of war, which would justify both the UK and many others in taking matters to a completely different level (and the FLSS would become part of a well-protected amphibious assault group).
And how many Wildcats/Apaches will she carry? How many can be ready for take off at any time? FLSS is simply a cconverted merchant ship. You don't have to be very effective to harm her. And, considering that RN ships will probably not fire if Boghammers aren't really close, how many of them is enough to overwhelm the defences? And even one such boat laden with explosives is more than enough to send FLSS to Davey Jones locker.
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…

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

The main thing at the moment is the safety of the crew and finding a way to resolve the crisis without having the embarrassment of a transparent tanker swap but looking to the future I think this crisis has now made it politically impossible for at least the duration of this Parliament for the government to propose reducing the surface fleet below 19 frigates and destroyers. On balance of probabilities I think it is likely that the T31 order will be increased to circa eight (possibly split into two sub-classes with one having a basic fit and the other better equipped) regardless of the crewing situation which is apparently slowly improving and will presumably be further helped by the lower crewing requirements of T26 and T31

Now it is entirely possible that unless more money / further recruitment is found keeping or slightly increasing the 19 figure will actually represent a cut in capability as opposed to dropping that figure a little and making each vessel individually more capable but that is where we are. Hopefully the RN can get through to the politicians that they would be even more embarrassed if we did have more vessels available to intervene in this kind of situation but they were too poorly equipped to be able to effectively or safely do so.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Digger22 wrote:It's also interesting that the US isn't unilaterally providing security for international shipping in the area, instead insisting that other nations protect their own interests. A sign of the new normal?
Apparently, the US repeatedly invited the UK to join a joint security operation for the Gulf in the past week or two. But May, Hunt & co rejected it becuase they didn't want to be seen as being too close to Trump and to support his position re Iran, and wanted to build a multinational coalition instead. Seems stupid to me

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

abc123 wrote:And how many Wildcats/Apaches will she carry? How many can be ready for take off at any time? FLSS is simply a cconverted merchant ship. You don't have to be very effective to harm her. And, considering that RN ships will probably not fire if Boghammers aren't really close, how many of them is enough to overwhelm the defences? And even one such boat laden with explosives is more than enough to send FLSS to Davey Jones locker.
How many helicopters do you need to maintain one ready to launch? I dare say that if they carried three, one of them would be available. In the meantime, they also will carry a small flotilla of their own boats that are likely to prove quite capable of keeping IRG speedboats at arm's length. Add in naval standard radar and military watchkeeping and it's unlikely that any IRG boats will get anywhere close without being warned off. Unlike merchant ships, RN and RFA vessels aren't compelled to obey instructions from armed Iranian vessels.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

FLSS would be fine (as would an up-gunned River or T31) for securing UK interests as they transverse the Straights of Hormuz, IF you do not expect further escalation and believe Iran will be happy with a RN ship acting against its assets with impunity. These ships would be okay if we were a week ago and a ship hadn’t been taken, but it has and now the gloves are off on both sides, even if the UK isn’t about to invade Iran.

That’s why having enough real war fighting assets (T45s, T26s, CVFs, LPDs and SSNs) to respond to an escalation is key, if you don’t you eventually get caught out - just as has happened now.
”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 »

Has recent events in the Gulf changed anyone's mind as to the value of high speed for an escort? A topic that is regularly poo pooed as being old fashioned or just a USN peculiarity.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

We are an easy target for Iran. What would happen if they sank Montrose? They could easily do it if they actually wanted to given the large numbers of shore based AShMs they have around the Straits. Would we go to war over such an event? Would our allies back us? Western Governments seem incapable of dealing with countries who do not play by the rules, and these countries know this.

As for high speed, for an Escort probably not, but for a littoral vessel able to operate in confined spaces like the Straits probably. Bring on the CB-90s or similar sized vessels operating from a mothership.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

abc123 wrote:Don't agree. FLSS can be just a floating target there. Hormuz isn't the Horn of Africa or Gulf of Guinea.
True but realistically in the Gulf everything's a floating target including the Bays and MCMV'S. RN just needs to be given the escorts to protect them as well as the commercial shipping transiting the shipping lanes.

Personally I think this is the first big test for Mr Williamson's Littoral Strike Group concept and actually I think it may have performed rather well. However, the commercial build standards of the FLSS are still a valid concern and remains the achilles heel of the whole strategy IMO.

Having a FLSS, 2XT31's, a Bay, a Wave and 4 MCMV'S based EoS with the ability to form a Littoral Strike Group at short notice when required would have been extremely useful in this instance, especially if it was then gradually reinforced by other T23's/T45's as necessary.
Caribbean wrote:...and the FLSS would become part of a well-protected amphibious assault group
Exactly
Pongoglo wrote:it might just remind Boris that there is more than Brexit to being PM and he also needs to focus on Defence.
Its Hunt that has been making all the noise about enlarging the fleet. Boris has been much quieter on the issue. Recent events will help to give useful context to the validity of the debate regarding increasing UK Defence spending.
SW1 wrote:why ask for a bigger fleet the current one can’t be manned properly.
Completely agree. New ships take time to fund and build. Increasing manpower can happen very quickly if the political will is there. Making the most of what we have in the water, right now, today, is the immediate priority. The wisdom of the 6XT45, 8XT26, 5XT31 strategy can be re-examined at SDSR 2020.
SW1 wrote:I think it does make a case for looking at how we proceed with littoral sea control. In the end this was 4 speed boats and helicopter maybe frigates aren’t the best way to challenge such a threat in narrow waters.
Agreed but this must surely tie-in with the design and makeup of the FLSS/LSG. It will be interesting to see if the FLSS design starts to resemble a more Enforcer based design with a well dock to enable the embarkation of larger, more capable fast patrol craft after recent events.
dmereifield wrote:But May, Hunt & co rejected it becuase they didn't want to be seen as being too close to Trump......Seems stupid to me
Just another example of a disfunctional government that is now quite clearly not fit for purpose. Definitely time for a new broom....

Post Reply