Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I still come back to two options that I would push if I was given say the 2 billion set aside for type 32 if indeed it is 2 billion

option 1 , do a deal with BAE for 1 more type 26 with a fixed price of 800 million in a contract for 6 ships and then order three more type 31 for for 1,2 billion giving the RN 9 T-26 and 8 T-31 I would then station 4 T-31's each side of Suez

Option 2 , do the same deal with BAE for type 26 and then do a deal Babcock for 8 x 105 meter MHPC fitted with a 3d radar M Cube CMS 1 x 57mm and 1 x 40mm a covered working deck and a open working deck of 25 meters for 1.2 billion or 150 million per ship

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:But what are you trading for the extra missiles the extra sonars the extra people to operate them the integration cost the support cost it’s not free.

They are where they are due to the over specialisation and requirements it put on to the Type26 hull it was almost a carbon copy of the army FRES program
It is just me I think type 31 is so close to being a really nice ship and I feel it is worth spending the extra money to get there I feel there is a case to just ask for more money
I think the type 31 is exactly type of procurement that type 26 should of been. But with slightly more focus on using bits we’ve already spend a lot of money developing and continue to do so. Type 31 is the most sensible decision in a long time for the navy and not unlike how type 23 started.

They asked for more money and got a lot more money in the just completed review. I wouldn’t be running back asking for more anytime soon not if I was them.

And if you think the T31 is such a sensible decision, let's try it out on the RAF:

The Tempest contract would for 100 aircraft with the ability for each carry to carry one missile and one bomb, at a speed of M1 for 1,000 miles, using off the (bottom) shelf radars from Thales, all at a fixed contract price (including R&D) of 2 billion. First aircraft to be delivered in 2025. The announcing press release would lyrically state that the UK's air defense was being increased by 50%.
You could argue that that's what Project Mosquito will end up being. The RAF do Hi/Lo, it's just that their low is going unmanned.

Or going further back Jaguar may be a good comparison, started out as a barely armed trainer.
Weak. Both LANCA and Jaguar are/were war fighting. T31 is not.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I do believe there is a deal to be done with BAE. There is zero chance of BAE not building the T83, so why not say we’ll book it in now, and guarantee orders to 2040; in return we want 9 T26s not 8.

If we don’t we know we’ll end up paying for 9 and only getting 8 anyway (to keep the skilled workforce in place).
”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 »

SW1 wrote:I’d be putting the unmanned systems in an RFA to transport them by sea and let the frigates get on with being frigates.
Of course you would, just like A400's will be launching the Storm Shadow replacements into battle leaving the Typhoons to get on being Typhoons.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Repulse wrote:I do believe there is a deal to be done with BAE. There is zero chance of BAE not building the T83, so why not say we’ll book it in now, and guarantee orders to 2040; in return we want 9 T26s not 8.

If we don’t we know we’ll end up paying for 9 and only getting 8 anyway (to keep the skilled workforce in place).
If you let Bae decide the most economic build rate, they'd take this in a heartbeat and sign the contracts tomorrow. And they'd construct an up to date facility to build both classes.

The Navy would be also thrilled.

Trouble is that Bae were assured they would be the only complex warship builder in the UK and would have a guaranteed workflow by a previous government. And on that basis they first acquired VT then closed the Portsmouth shipyard. The government crossed their heart and promised and everything.

Of course then along came Geo Osborne who reneged.

So the chances of Bae taking a government promise about future work without a signed contract, hover pretty close to zero.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Of course it's war-fighting - it's a big Lafayette. The equipment lines up almost line for line, similar crew numbers as well.

Whether that's what the RN actually needs is entirely open to question, but it's clearly not an OPV.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:I’d be putting the unmanned systems in an RFA to transport them by sea and let the frigates get on with being frigates.
Of course you would, just like A400's will be launching the Storm Shadow replacements into battle leaving the Typhoons to get on being Typhoons.
Is an unmanned boat a missile? Is a reaper or watchkeeper flown into a region or transported in a c17?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:Of course it's war-fighting - it's a big Lafayette. The equipment lines up almost line for line, similar crew numbers as well.

Whether that's what the RN actually needs is entirely open to question, but it's clearly not an OPV.
The Royal Navy begs to differ :D

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... me-update/
Type 32 is in the ‘blank sheet of paper’ concept phase where ideas are explored and many discarded, feasibility studies conducted and before a loose outline specification is drawn up ahead of the Assessment phase. The RN itself does not yet know exactly what Type 32 will look like as it considers the options and it is far too soon to be demanding concrete answers.
Clean sheet for the T32!

Feasibility studies and assessment phases are not free. The T32 programme is costing money for already and the two current Frigate programmes haven't even got a hull in the water yet.

Alarm bells are ringing.....

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

More PR spin from Navy Lookout.

The reality is that T32 will be more T31. How many more weapons and how far modified to act as a mothership will be decided by the available budget. Exactly the same as for T83. Got to keep Govan/Scotstoun and Rosyth ticking over.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Yep type 32 will be a reworked type 31

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote:The reality is that T32 will be more T31
Tempest414 wrote:type 32 will be a reworked type 31
Which begs a question.

If what RN really wants is a modified T31 why are five non-modified T31's currently on order?

Another politically driven nonsensical decision to add to an ever increasing list.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Different contracts with different pots of money. T-31 was built to a budget, sort of which led to its planned configuration. If the pot of money for T-32 is bigger and it is an evolution of the T-31 it will look more like the versions put forward in competitions for other navies.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
tomuk wrote:The reality is that T32 will be more T31
Tempest414 wrote:type 32 will be a reworked type 31
Which begs a question.

If what RN really wants is a modified T31 why are five non-modified T31's currently on order?

Another politically driven nonsensical decision to add to an ever increasing list.
No not really the MOD and the RN know that Rosyth need to work up. By keeping type 31 simple yet with a lot growth Rosyth get building by the time ship number six is ready to start they should be up to speed also the type 23 life ex should be done allowing space for the type 31's to go in for upgrade

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

A quick point I’d like to make is the numbers mix between T45 / T83, T26, T31 and T32.

Unless I’ve got this wrong (happy to stand corrected) as things stand it is anticipated that the RN will have 8x T26, and 5x of each of T31 and T32.

The current issues with the T45 (and the poor availability from it) demonstrates the need for the T83 to have no less than 6 units (ideally 8).

How this is squared with the inevitable cost pressures that come with delivering a ship that it almost inevitably going to be much larger than the T45 and have a greater range of capabilities I have no idea, but it is nevertheless a vital part of what the RN has to be moving forward.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:No not really the MOD and the RN know that Rosyth need to work up. By keeping type 31 simple yet with a lot growth Rosyth get building by the time ship number six is ready to start they should be up to speed also the type 23 life ex should be done allowing space for the type 31's to go in for upgrade
The T23's will be decommissioning at the same rate that the T31's will be commissioning so escort availability is likely to be very similar.

If the plan is to give the T31's major upgrades at the point when work on the first T32 is commencing (around 2026) it is worth also considering what other build programmes will be in progress at that time.

1. At least £2.5bn will need to have been found for the T32 programme which should begin construction in 2026.

2. The £1.5bn FSS programme should be underway with hull 1 under construction and at least steel cut on hull 2.

3. The T26 build programme will be well advanced with HMS Glasgow commissioning and another 5 hulls under construction. At least £2.6bn will have had to be found for the second batch (hulls 4, 5 & 6) and also the third batch (hulls 7 and 8) for another £1.7bn or £2.6bn if hull 9 is ordered. This is relying on the fact that Batch 2 and 3 are not altered, improved or upgraded which would cost more.

4. The MRSS build programme will be commencing with perhaps six £300m+ vessels split between two £1bn batches of three vessels.

5. SSN plus SSBN builds continue as scheduled hopefully on budget.

6. The River Class Batch 1 will also require replacement around the mid 2020's. Lots of options but another 3 OPV's would likely cost £300m to £400m.

7. The much heralded Multi Role Research Vessel should be commissioned and fully with perhaps a second to follow. A budget of 300m+ would seem realistic for the first vessel.

This is a highly ambitious build programme, a substantial amount of which is currently unfunded. Going on the MoD's historical track record there is a very high likelihood that these programme will be cut, possibly quite severely. The first thing that will happen is programmes will be delayed, then hull numbers will be reduced and finally FFBNW items will never materialise.

It must be remembered that the T31's are replacing the T23 GP's they are NOT replacing the RB1's. The addition of the two LRG's have changed everything. The rationale for the flag waving T31's is now obsolete. If the T31's are to be upgraded starting in 2026 something else will get binned, such as the 3 OPV replacements or one of the MRSS vessels.

This is the reason IMO that the extra £200m must be found NOW to ensure the T31's are credible escorts from the outset.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Tempest414 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
tomuk wrote:The reality is that T32 will be more T31
Tempest414 wrote:type 32 will be a reworked type 31
Which begs a question.

If what RN really wants is a modified T31 why are five non-modified T31's currently on order?

Another politically driven nonsensical decision to add to an ever increasing list.
No not really the MOD and the RN know that Rosyth need to work up. By keeping type 31 simple yet with a lot growth Rosyth get building by the time ship number six is ready to start they should be up to speed also the type 23 life ex should be done allowing space for the type 31's to go in for upgrade
Your are re-writing history, the T26 costs massively exceeded budget with a ship twice the size of a T23, Treasury understandably put the boot in when the hard figures came in and cut T26 numbers from 13 to 8.

To keep the numbers of frigates at the politically correct 13 Treasury imposed a £250 million limit per ship for the 5 remaining 'frigates', nothing to do with its capabilities or Rosyth, within the cost constraints RN picked what they thought the best option, Babcock's, and that's why five long range OPV T31 'frigates' in build at Rosyth.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Yes that is the simple history of the frigate program however it does not change the fact that whoever won the type 31 contract would need time to work up and there fore the ship had to be simple

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote:6. The River Class Batch 1 will also require replacement around the mid 2020's. Lots of options but another 3 OPV's would likely cost £300m to £400m.
The Batch 1 Rivers won't be replaced that's what the B2 will do when they are released from covering for T23GP/T31.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote:The Batch 1 Rivers won't be replaced that's what the B2 will do when they are released from covering for T23GP/T31.
Following that logic requires two T31's to be forward based in Singapore plus a third in Gibraltar leaving only two left to conduct FRE and pretty much all of the UK's NATO obligations. I would suggest that isn't a credible plan.

Also with one RB2 permanently forward based in the Falklands and three assigned to Fisheries Protection it only leaves a single RB2 to deploy on APT(N). This leaves the OPV fleet massively stretched at a time when the UK will be renegotiating its fishing quotas with the EU. Again this scenario doesn't really look credible either.

I think it is now highly likely the RB1's will be replaced with another batch of OPV's at the appropriate time.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
tomuk wrote:The Batch 1 Rivers won't be replaced that's what the B2 will do when they are released from covering for T23GP/T31.
Following that logic requires two T31's to be forward based in Singapore plus a third in Gibraltar leaving only two left to conduct FRE and pretty much all of the UK's NATO obligations. I would suggest that isn't a credible plan.

Also with one RB2 permanently forward based in the Falklands and three assigned to Fisheries Protection it only leaves a single RB2 to deploy on APT(N). This leaves the OPV fleet massively stretched at a time when the UK will be renegotiating its fishing quotas with the EU. Again this scenario doesn't really look credible either.

I think it is now highly likely the RB1's will be replaced with another batch of OPV's at the appropriate time.
On Singapore I think two B2s forward based is a bit of PR. B2s aren't really credible so by sending two you sort of make up it by tonnage.

On fisheries three OPV for the high end are fine any additional cover should be from non military assets Coast guard/ Border Force.

Overall you seem to forget that the Navy has T45 and T23ASW/T26 to cover some of the tasks you mention too.

J. Tattersall

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by J. Tattersall »

tomuk wrote:B2s aren't really credible
What role or mission aren't they credible for?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

J. Tattersall wrote:
tomuk wrote:B2s aren't really credible
What role or mission aren't they credible for?
For deploying to Singapore. They are just a very token presence. What do they bring the table? For example in an exercise with local navys?

J. Tattersall

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by J. Tattersall »

tomuk wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:
tomuk wrote:B2s aren't really credible
What role or mission aren't they credible for?
For deploying to Singapore. They are just a very token presence. What do they bring the table? For example in an exercise with local navys?
I&W

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote:On Singapore I think two B2s forward based is a bit of PR. B2s aren't really credible so by sending two you sort of make up it by tonnage.
I really don't know what "make it up by tonnage" means but if you are saying that the RB2's aren't ideally suited for forward basing in Singapore but RN simply has nothing else available I would certainly agree with that.
tomuk wrote:On fisheries three OPV for the high end are fine any additional cover should be from non military assets Coast guard/ Border Force.
What is the high end of Fisheries Protection? Do you mean offshore?

The coastguard and border force have no resources to do anything meaningful for fisheries outside of the 12 mile limit. I certainly agree that a UK coastguard force should be supercharged going forward and given a fleet of fast patrol vessels and drones to safeguard the UK EEZ but HMG is currently showing no signs of going in such a direction.
tomuk wrote:Overall you seem to forget that the Navy has T45 and T23ASW/T26 to cover some of the tasks you mention too.
Not at all but realistically with the CSG and the CASD RN are fully stretched. Only 14 escorts are not enough to ensure the safety of the CVF's and the CASD so asking even more of this escort force is unwise IMO.

The priority for the T23ASW/T26/T45's must remain the safety of the CSG and CASD, relying on Allies to fill the gaps in the escort fleet whilst also claiming that the Royal Navy is growing is disingenuous to say the least.

There is no chance of any increase in escort numbers within the next decade and any increase that is planned is totally reliant on the T32 programme which is currently only an unfunded aspiration.

Post Reply