Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Tempest414 wrote:
abc123 wrote:Ok, let's agree to disagree.

About training, the only such navy that crosses my mind could be Cambodia. Others really don't need to learn anything from two low-tech ships like Rivers, I mean, what to learn, how to operate RHIB or 30 mm gun or navigation radar? They all have and use that allready for decades.

This situation reminds me about sending of HMS PoW and Repulse, during WW2, to deter IJN. We all know how it ended and how much that deterred them. If the HMG didn't send them, the end result would be the same, but the RN would have two battleships more and Tom Thumb and 3000 fine RN sailors would be alive for much longer. And maybe somewhere else they might actually make the difference.
Firstly I am sure you have heard of the RN's FOST program that trains all UK ships and Navies all around the world just because a ship dose not have a full set of weapons dose not mean it can't act that dose in a training ex tactic and training are what win battles like in the Falkland where the Argentine pilots lacked nothing in skill and bravery but lacked modern tactical training and combat. We see all the time navies doing RAS training without a tanker. As said above there are many training tasks that can and will be carried out

As for the POW/ Repulse mistakes are made in war they Should have waited for a carrier to arrive as I have said before had Indomitable arrived and been with the battle group thing would have been different as her air-wing of 22 Sea Hurricanes and 18 Wildcats would have been a match for the attacking force but it was not
Now were talking. FOST, ASW, submarine operations, that's something worty to learn from the RN. But that's not something that you will learn from these Rivers.

Argies lacked just two things in 1982, smarter political leadership and better equipment. Nothin g else.

About Indomitable, IMVHO, even the half of the RN carrier/BB force at the time wouldn't be enough to stop the Japanese, but that's not important now.
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…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

abc123 wrote:You are aware that these countries do have their own navies for about 60+ years? Man would have thought that they managed to learn such things by now.
It cuts both ways the RN will learn from regional players as well do think the officers and other crew will be on the B2's for ever no they will be commanders of escorts and the lessons learnt now will stand in good stead later .

Harwood was able to track down Graf Spee due to his time spent before the war and commander South Atlantic and what he learnt of the area and shipping movements

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

abc123 wrote:Argies lacked just two things in 1982, smarter political leadership and better equipment. Nothin g else.
you simply wrong they had all the kit they needed say for a few more exocet's and air to air tankers and this where the training and modern tactics would have come in

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tinman »

Ron5 wrote:
Tinman wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Tinman wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Tinman wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Tinman wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:
Tinman wrote:Want to back that up?
AS it stands it has no sonar either hull mounted or as a tail therefore cannot detect underwater targets. The Wildcat can only drop ASW Torpedoes or Depth Charges after being queued by off board systems, usually its mothership. Yes it may get the barest of ASW capability in say littoral areas with unmanned systems but it is limited in the size of these it can carry as it does really have a mission bay.

AS far as fleet upgrades are concerned, I am beginning to think the Interim AShM is becoming more important. Showing you are equipped to launch such a weapon in retaliation to being fired upon has a deterrence factor. At present, besides the Wildcat the RN's escort fleet has little offensive capability, out gunned by many nations at a lower tier. WE can defend ourselves but have difficulty shooting back/
In what scenario would a T31 go up against SSN/K alone?
So the Type 31 "escort" needs an escort?
Dear me, in what scenario Can you see any watship fighting alone?
Not a student of naval history then?

Last 30 years? Any examples?
History started precisely 30 years ago? Dear me, that's pretty weak.
Two nations post ww2 have sunk a ship from the subsurface, I can't recall any watship fighting in it's own, against a never peer or peer, can you?
Moving the goalposts eh? Putting them back to where they were and answering your question:
Can you see any warship fighting alone?
There's been literally hundreds of attacks on ships since the end of WW2. Civilian and warship. Most did not result in a sinking. Some are more famous than others. Eilat, Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyer, Belgrano etc. are well known. Others less so. Cheonan was sunk by a North Korean submarine but not many remember the name.

But the bottom line is that the majority of the attacks on warships occurred when they were alone and not operating with an escort.

So Mr RAF, you are wrong.
Atlantic Conveyor was a merchant ship, Sheffield, Coventry we're not alone,

Cheonan, was allegedly sank by a midget sub, in it's territorial waters, using that is a stretch, clutching at straws maybe?

Anything remotely recent? On a RN or NATO asset?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

USS Shark was on her own when hit by a Exocet missile in 1990

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

Tinman wrote:
Atlantic Conveyor was a merchant ship, Sheffield, Coventry we're not alone,
Nor was Belgrano, she was being escorted by two WW2-era destroyers when she was sunk

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Tempest414 wrote:
abc123 wrote:Argies lacked just two things in 1982, smarter political leadership and better equipment. Nothin g else.
you simply wrong they had all the kit they needed for a few saymore exocet's and air to air tankers and this where the training and modern tactics would have come in
:think:

Not something to so simply write off.
Plus, more modern Sidewinders would be handy. Also, not having a WW2-era escorts would be nice too. Not saying that it would have saved Belgrano, but a more modern ships are better to have than older ones.
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…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tinman wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Tinman wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Tinman wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Tinman wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Tinman wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:
Tinman wrote:Want to back that up?
AS it stands it has no sonar either hull mounted or as a tail therefore cannot detect underwater targets. The Wildcat can only drop ASW Torpedoes or Depth Charges after being queued by off board systems, usually its mothership. Yes it may get the barest of ASW capability in say littoral areas with unmanned systems but it is limited in the size of these it can carry as it does really have a mission bay.

AS far as fleet upgrades are concerned, I am beginning to think the Interim AShM is becoming more important. Showing you are equipped to launch such a weapon in retaliation to being fired upon has a deterrence factor. At present, besides the Wildcat the RN's escort fleet has little offensive capability, out gunned by many nations at a lower tier. WE can defend ourselves but have difficulty shooting back/
In what scenario would a T31 go up against SSN/K alone?
So the Type 31 "escort" needs an escort?
Dear me, in what scenario Can you see any watship fighting alone?
Not a student of naval history then?

Last 30 years? Any examples?
History started precisely 30 years ago? Dear me, that's pretty weak.
Two nations post ww2 have sunk a ship from the subsurface, I can't recall any watship fighting in it's own, against a never peer or peer, can you?
Moving the goalposts eh? Putting them back to where they were and answering your question:
Can you see any warship fighting alone?
There's been literally hundreds of attacks on ships since the end of WW2. Civilian and warship. Most did not result in a sinking. Some are more famous than others. Eilat, Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyer, Belgrano etc. are well known. Others less so. Cheonan was sunk by a North Korean submarine but not many remember the name.

But the bottom line is that the majority of the attacks on warships occurred when they were alone and not operating with an escort.

So Mr RAF, you are wrong.
Atlantic Conveyor was a merchant ship, Sheffield, Coventry we're not alone,

Cheonan, was allegedly sank by a midget sub, in it's territorial waters, using that is a stretch, clutching at straws maybe?

Anything remotely recent? On a RN or NATO asset?
Clearly reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Try reading what I said again. Sound out the words, it will help. Especially the word "examples" and what that word relates to.

And I notice that once again, you are moving the goalposts to limit to RN & NATO warship. Much like the RAF moved the location of an island base in their argument against carriers. Weak. Very weak.

Now rather than you sitting back in your holiday inn sampling the minibar at the taxpayers expense, how about you do some research and tell me how many of the hundreds of attacks on shipping since 1945 a) involved warships and b) involved warships operating on their own.

By the way, the Sheffield was detached from the fleet and had no escort. As was Courageous when she sunk Belgrano. Clearly two warships fighting "on their own".

GS&M.

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Enigmatically »

I really don't want to get involved in this argument for a number of reasons. But on a point of fact that does not impact the debate but should be corrected:
It was HMS Conqueror that sunk the Belgrano - not Courageous

(the only nuclear powered submarined ever to have engaged with torpedos I believe)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Enigmatically wrote:I really don't want to get involved in this argument for a number of reasons. But on a point of fact that does not impact the debate but should be corrected:
It was HMS Conqueror that sunk the Belgrano - not Courageous

(the only nuclear powered submarined ever to have engaged with torpedos I believe)
Thanks! Best to stay out when the handbags are flying :lol:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Enigmatically wrote:(the only nuclear powered submarined ever to have engaged with torpedos I believe)
I think it was and still is the only SSN to have attacked a maritime target full stop. I may be wrong though. :)

Bring Deeps
Donator
Posts: 217
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Bring Deeps »

Many of the examples quoted indicate the obvious point that you need the right number and type of ships each with the appropriate equipment for the job in hand.

Force Z, OK for flag waving but unbalanced and far too small for conflict with the IJN. The failure to remove it from the region immediately after Pearl Harbor made its fate inevitable.

Belgrano inadequate ASW.

Sheffield & Atlantic Conveyor inadequate AEW/missile defence systems.

The RN is simply too small to undertake all of the tasks it could be allocated by the UK Government.

Is the plan to replace the River class stationed overseas with Type 31s? If so what will the River class be used for when that happens? They seem over the top for fishery protection work.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Bring Deeps wrote:Is the plan to replace the River class stationed overseas with Type 31s? If so what will the River class be used for when that happens? They seem over the top for fishery protection work.
They will most likely leave Forth on as FIGS and keep one B2 in the Med the Type 31's will probably be split 2 in the home fleet and 3 EoS

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Nice overview.


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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:They will most likely leave Forth on as FIGS and keep one B2 in the Med the Type 31's will probably be split 2 in the home fleet and 3 EoS
More likely to keep two B2s on FIGS (or FIPS) and WIGS.
”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
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »


(Royal Navy) 29th July 2021
First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Tony Radakin says tremendous progress has been made over the past two years of the transformation programme revolutionising everything the Navy does.

But in a wide-ranging interview reviewing the Navy's achievements and challenges, the admiral continues to push for change as he looks to 2030 and beyond.

"We must not let our nation and government down. So change now and be an even better Navy and be prepared to look at everything we do.”

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I am more concerned about the Politicians letting the Royal Navy and the rest of the Armed Forces down than the other way around.

J. Tattersall

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by J. Tattersall »

Bring Deeps wrote: The RN is simply too small to undertake all of the tasks it could be allocated by the UK Government.
This is a question of relativism. It's also of course true to say
The USN is simply too small to undertake all of the tasks it could be allocated by the US Government.
Which is why the USG are again pressing allies to burden share.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

What we need to look at is NATO Europe has at this time

4 x Carriers
5 x LHD's ( 2 of these can operate fast jets )
13 x SSN's
40 x SSK
113 x Escorts
28 x Corvettes
8 x LPD's
3 x LSD's
5 x LST's
20 x Tankers
2 x SSS

This dose not include the Atlantic fleets of the USN and RCN

Edit ; Or Turkey

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

J. Tattersall wrote:
Bring Deeps wrote: The RN is simply too small to undertake all of the tasks it could be allocated by the UK Government.
This is a question of relativism. It's also of course true to say
The USN is simply too small to undertake all of the tasks it could be allocated by the US Government.
Which is why the USG are again pressing allies to burden share.
At the same time as building more and better ships.

Not sure what your point is. The world is getting more dangerous so countries are beefing up their military. The UK should do the same.

Blame the Chinese, mostly them at fault.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:
Bring Deeps wrote: The RN is simply too small to undertake all of the tasks it could be allocated by the UK Government.
This is a question of relativism. It's also of course true to say
The USN is simply too small to undertake all of the tasks it could be allocated by the US Government.
Which is why the USG are again pressing allies to burden share.
At the same time as building more and better ships.

Not sure what your point is. The world is getting more dangerous so countries are beefing up their military. The UK should do the same.

Blame the Chinese, mostly them at fault.
I agree the UK needs more ships capable of war fighting as dose most European navies however as said above the size of Europe's fleet as a whole is about the same as the Chinese fleet in size and make up. It is also two times the size of the Russian fleet

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Re the recent discussion whether you would classify the T31 as true frigate or as I would a flag waving presence 'frigate' for G and T parties on the flight deck, but not operationally survivable in a hot zone as so lightly armed.

What reinforced my view was two recent posts on Naval News

The first was the ~£385 million update of the German 4,900t F123 Brandenburg class frigates, current spec per NavalNews
Sensors: 1 × multifunction radar SMART-S; 1 × air surveillance radar LW 08, range: more than 260 km; 2 × fire control radar STIR 180; 1 × DSQS-23BZ bow sonar; 1 × video and infrared target tracking MSP 600; 1 x EK system FL 1800 S (electronic reconnaissance/electronic warfare) 2 × navigation radars
Weapons: 1 x main gun 76 mm , 2 x 27 mm MLG naval light gun; 4 x 12.7 mm; 2 x launcher RGM-84 Harpoon; 1 x vertical launch system VLS Mk41 for anti-aircraft missiles NSSM and ESSM; 2 x launcher RIM-116 RAM; 2 x torpedo tube for lightweight torpedo Mk46; 4 x decoy launcher MASS
"tomuk"Nick are you being paid by Raytheon/Lockheed Martin to continually run down UK/European technology? Or are you funded by a semiconductor company with a large GaN foundry?
The update contract surprisingly won by Saab, presumably beating off strong bids by Hensoldt and Thales, with Saab's newer radars the Sea Giraffe 4A S-band and Sea Giraffe 1X-band (both GaN Tom :angel: ) Ceros 200 fire control director as well as Saab’s 9LV Combat Management System etc

The second post was on the new Israeli Sa'ar 6 corvettes which is only 1,900t, weapon spec as per NavalNews below, really heavily armed reflecting their actual experience in fighting hot wars, stand out is the 72 AAW missiles, 40 Tamir's equivalent to Sea Ceptor for CIWS and 32 Barak-8 equivalent range to ESSMs if not longer to give medium range AA defence (its claimed Azerbaijan Barak-8s successfully shot down the Armenian launched Russian short range ballistic Iskander missiles in the February conflict this year, Armenia having acquired 25 Iskanders in 2016) and the 16, repeat 16 anti-ship missiles for offensive fire power.
Oto Melara 76 mm main gun, two Typhoon 25mm Weapon Stations, 32 vertical launch cells for Barak-8 surface-to-air missiles, two C-Dome point defense systems (with 20 Tamir missiles each), 16 anti-ship missiles (likely Gabriel V), two 324 mm torpedo launchers .

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 »

Type-2150 sonar passed sea acceptance trials. Good news.


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:Type-2150 sonar passed sea acceptance trials. Good news.
I wonder how much it would cost to fit them to the type 31's.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote: I wonder how much it would cost to fit them to the type 31's.
Whatever it costs it would be worth it.

Post Reply