Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

Interesting overview but very little new information, simply because there isn’t any.

HMG really needs to stop with the feet dragging and order some ships…..ASAP!

https://www.navylookout.com/a-big-futur ... pbuilding/

In this topic, Mine Countermeasures Logistic Support Vessel (MCMLSV) is the most interesting ones. So, autonomous MCM kits are to be deployed:
- not only from T32, LSDs, and from land (these three are officially announced)
- but also from the MCMLSVs
- (in addition to possible River B2 and T26, as discussed here).

Presumably they will be PSV-like ships, cheap to procure (there are many laid-up now) and operate (without armaments, it will require very small amount of crew).

In place, the "T32" in my mind ( ) is becoming more and more "a T31 with small modification" (In truth, I really hope adding 2 T26 rather than 5 T32, but imagining about T32 is another fun story...).

[Scimitar54]

Ron5 wrote:-

But more Astutes would be loverly

Need to get back to a dozen SSN, bakers or otherwise!

[Lord Jim]

We need the initial SSN(R)s to be operational whilst the seven Astutes still have a good few years of life in them, therefore increase the SSN force numbers, and then drumbeat production to reach a greater number than seven when the class is complete. Then what happens, the Dreadnoughts will still have decades of service left so should be have a slower drumbeat, say a new submarines every three years, meaning nine SSN(R)s would take twenty Seven years minimum to complete deliveries. That would mean some Astutes serving for over thirty years. Can their "Lifetime" reactors last that amount of time?

Could we afford to have Barrow constantly produce a SSN, SSBM or SSCG every three or four years ? Could they be producing autonomous unmanned nuclear platforms in twenty or so years time, or SSNs with a crew compliment of only a few dozen men and women? Are nuclear "Loyal Wingmen" on the cards or are we going to get a nuclear powered submarine that is a carrier if say a dozen conventional autonomous unmanned underwater platforms able to carry out passive duties like surveillance and also active roles such as ASW using Torpedoes? A SSN acting as Mothership, co ordinating its school of UUVs as well maintaining, refuelling and rearming them. I wonder how large an area such a vessels could control stealthily but with the ability to kill anything that is caught in its sensor web? With land surface and air A2/AD doctrine destines to become more and more competitive, could such a underwater capability be the real power play.

[Dobbo]

I think without question the tempo of the drumbeat of submarine construction should increase. Constructing 11 over a c.30 - 35 year cycle is horrendously inefficient and realistically you want to see at least 14 SSBN/SSN’s constructed over that period, assuming the concepts of such remain over that timescale.

The RN certainly has good reason to want more SSNs and if there are going to be more deployments in the APAC region as well as more activity from Russia, more boats will be needed.

[SD67]

You have to remember the Subs have gotten much bigger, Barrow needed considerable expansion to be able to do Successor. Skills are becoming a limiting factor as well.

[Anthony58]

Personnel is a limiting factor for both the surface fleet, RFA and submarines.

BTW the topic thread is Escorts.

[Repulse]

tempo of the drumbeat of submarine construction should increase.

Previously I read that after the initial issues with the construction of the Astutes a study found the optimal drum beat for the UK was a sub every 20 months. That would be a fleet of 15 SSNs and SSBNs over a 25 year cycle.

[Poiuytrewq]

https://www.navylookout.com/batch-i-riv ... ntil-2028/

Pretty clear where current planning is pointing now.

RB2’s replace RB1’s in UK EEZ around 2028 leaving the remaining two RB2’s for Falklands and Caribbean.

The T31’s take over the RB2’s forward based taskings in the Indo-pacific and Gib starting around 2027 and likely FRE also leaving one T31 for planned maintenance etc.

The T26’s take over from the T23 ASW’s as planned.

The T32’s take over from the T23 GP’s.

So effectively the T31’s are replacing a batch of OPV’s which could be considered a considerable upgrade!

Also looks like no more OPV’s in the pipeline.

[Repulse]

Poiuytrewq, I think you are right, but I think the RN is wasting an opportunity.

If the T31 are glorified OPVs (Sloops) then let’s be very clear on what we want them to do. They will be the forward presence, relatively cheap and simple to maintain, with enough for self defence but not enough to get into danger. Better to focus on their ability to support the LRGs than focus on weapons. Paper frigates.

The T32s should then be focused on ASW operations to escort the CBGs. This would then free up the T26s to be the true Global Combat Ships they were designed for.

Lastly, for a number of reasons we cannot end up with a limited fleet primarily of large ships, a few more OPVs would both resolve some of these issues but also ensure ship operations are being optimised.

[Caribbean]

Also looks like no more OPV’s in the pipeline

Unless the plan is to replace the P2000s with something a bit larger for coastal waters (with the URNU duties being taken on by additional SEA Class hulls)

[Repulse]

Caribbean, that would be interesting, perhaps a UK Cape Class type ship.

[NickC]

Lasers, don't think previously posted

Last month PR from Chess Dynamics notes win of the UK MoD Contract by Thales for the advanced directed energy system (laser) funded by the MoD Naval Capability Demonstrator Programme to be installed on a RN frigate for an extended period of testing and evaluation.

Chess Dynamics as part of the Thales team will be responsible for designing a platform with its specialised ultra-high accuracy positioner (UHAP) that will accurately steer and point the Thales high energy laser system. (MBDA Dragonfire used a QinetiQ fibre laser with beam control by Leonardo).

From <https://www.cohortplc.com/news/press-re ... hales-team>

[Poiuytrewq]

If the T31 are glorified OPVs (Sloops) then let’s be very clear on what we want them to do. They will be the forward presence, relatively cheap and simple to maintain, with enough for self defence but not enough to get into danger. Better to focus on their ability to support the LRGs than focus on weapons. Paper frigates.

The logic of such a vessel is clearly highly debatable but if we follow the thought train a bit further down the track the ultimate destination is unpredictable at this stage.

For example, if the first two T31’s armed with 1x 57mm, 2x 40mm and 12 CAMM forward deploy to the Indo-Pacific and the threat level remains moderate then nothing happens, everyone goes home safe and the Treasury got it right. However, if the threat levels rise, tensions get to breaking point or a conflict starts to look like a real prospect the T31’s can have a vastly improved level of armament fitted pretty rapidly. If this is accurate then current planning is hedging both ways.

I am not suggesting that this is the optimal strategic decision, simply suggesting that this analysis is as credible as any other.

The T32s should then be focused on ASW operations to escort the CBGs. This would then free up the T26s to be the true Global Combat Ships they were designed for.

If the T32’s are to act as escorts for the CSG then they really need to be T26’s perhaps minus the TLAM capability, Mk45 + auto mag etc.

If the future really is UAV/USV/UUV based then the T26’s aren’t actually that well suited to embrace it.

[Repulse]

Poiuytrewq, sorry fail to understand your logic on the T31. The assumption has to be if you are adding more weapons and systems than are on the B2 Rivers then you are asking them to do something more. If it’s sailing closer or being more provocative to Chinese assets in the SCS, then forget sailing them home for a refit. You want a fully functional frigate that can handle risks above and below the surface, a T26.

The T26 has been designed as a silent sub hunter and an independent attack / sea denial platform - it would be where I would start for a purely defensive CBG ASW active platform.

[Poiuytrewq]

…fail to understand your logic on the T31

It’s not my logic, its current planning.

IMO current planning is really just RN trying to make the best of a bad hand. RN wants and needs Frigates, not OPV’s in the Indo-Pacific but OPV’s are all that is available. The T31’s will replace them eventually but the T31’s will clearly be Frigates with a lot of FFBNW. By choosing the largest possible hull, RN have ensured that the T31’s could be upgraded into formidable Frigates if required. It’s not ideal but it is a smart move given the landscape.

The T31 programme could not be altered, ultimately for political reasons, but clearly RN has successfully argued that the T23 GP’s need to be replaced with credible Frigates which maximise the use of next generation off board systems. Again, an intelligent move but cost controls on other programmes will need to be near faultless to ensure the T32’s arrive within the allotted timeframe.

The T32 programme needs to be efficient, decisive and swift. A lot depends upon it.

[Repulse]

It’s not my logic, its current planning.

Thanks, my mistake.

My view is that the most credible independent GP platforms we have are the T26s. Operating one or more with the RAN would give a strong signal and real value. Even then I would still add an OPV or Echo class ship to the mix, as they will be able to operate more easily in more locations, both politically and also availability wise. This is where the T31 or T32 if done right (freeing up the T26s from escort ASW duties) could be a real game changer rather than just a cynical attempt to claim the RN has more frigates.

[Jake1992]

It’s not my logic, its current planning.

Thanks, my mistake.

My view is that the most credible independent GP platforms we have are the T26s. Operating one or more with the RAN would give a strong signal and real value. Even then I would still add an OPV or Echo class ship to the mix, as they will be able to operate more easily in more locations, both politically and also availability wise. This is where the T31 or T32 if done right (freeing up the T26s from escort ASW duties) could be a real game changer rather than just a cynical attempt to claim the RN has more frigates.

The problem with having the T32 as carrier escort is that it would a) need to be a world class ASW vessel equal to the T26 in that area, this would cost far more than what the budget would allow or would end up seeing a cut in T26 numbers making the whole reason for going this route pointless. Or b) we accept a second rate ASW vessel as escort of our only 2 carriers and in foing so put them at greater risk.

For me as things stand ( already to far gone with T31 for major change ) we need to fit out the T31 as credible second tier escort, this means HMS, greater number of CAMM, AShM. This will allow them to match the likes of the Anzac class in most ways.

As for the T32 IMO we should look to have them as escorts for the LSG but a flexible design to allow them to contribute more than just basic escort role. For this reason I believe we should be looking at a larger Absalon style design for the T32, a 150m by 21 Absalon design fitted with 24 CAMM and a 5” main hun would allow protection of the LSG along with NGF ( saving the use of the “real” escorts ) it could also allow the deployment of up to 100 RM with CB90s or up to 16m sized unmanned system.
This design offers far better flexibility and untillity than a the current T31 set up.

[Ron5]

I wonder if a dumbed down Type 26 could still be a candidate for the T32.

All diesel (or diesel electric) propulsion, 57mm & 40mm guns, less capable comms & sensors, no mk 41's etc. Retain the hull sonar and make the towed array FFBNW, add the interim anti-ship missiles.

How much could be shaved off the cost?

[donald_of_tokyo]

1: On T31

When we discuss about "perfectly uparmed River B2 OPV", it is a ship with a 57mm gun, helo-hangar, good range. When this level is achieved, the next "mission creep" is adding 12 CAMM. Here comes T31, as of now. Therefore, T31 for Gulf, or even South East Asia is no problem.

When the globe gets more dangerous, up-arm T31 to make them a proper "2nd-rate frigate". It will surely take 1-2 years, but much better than building from scratch. Having this option make me feel OK with current lightly-armed T31.

To verify this concept, I think one or two T31s can be up-armed as such, in near future, as we frequently discuss here. For example, "T31-mid", added with HMS, 12-more CAMM (total 24) and 8 I-SSGW, added with 2 ASW-oriented UAVs, for example? (point-1)


2: On T32

With the Mine Countermeasure Logistic Support Vessel (MCLSV) to come, I'm wondering why not this (presumably) PSV-based hull, be also used also for ALL the tasks T32 as a drone mother ship are planned to cover. (point-2)

Making a "good escort" out of T32 will make it expensive. In that case, I cannot stop thinking "just, why not more T26?". Anything "more fighty" will ultimately mean "a T26", I guess. (point-3)


3: And, combining point-2 and 3, I'm wondering if RN really needs T32 at all?

For example, if it is £2B total for "5 T32 or equivalent";

The "T32 program" might be
- building 5 units with £285M each
- with detailed design + initial cost for brand new (or heavily modified) design with £570M (2-unit cost equivalent)

As an outcome, UK will have the 2nd UK-origin escort design (along with T26), or 3rd escort design (along with T26 and T31) which can be proposed for export.

Not bad, but I cannot stop thinking of;

"Alternative mixed program" might be
- building one more T26 with £800M (all initial cost is already payed)
- purchase 3 more "MCLSV" to be named "multi-purpose drone Logistic Support Vessel" with £300M total
- building 3 more "T31-mid" with remaining £900M (2 ASW-oriented UAVs each might not fit within this budget, though).

"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"?

[Jake1992]

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.

[Tempest414]

The best outcome for me is that Type 32 is a next step type 31 with a 127mm gun 30 plus CAMM plus 16 NSM add to this the ability to use the RN's pod system and task it with defence of the LRG's

Lets just look at type 32 as tool to keep Babcocks going after type 31 and at a cost from 4 billion for 10 ships it sits well at under half price of the 8 type 26's at 8 billion for 8 ships ( And yes we know why )

[Repulse]

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

[Lord Jim]

Ideally all future RN Warships and some RFAs should be able to operate some autonomous platforms, it is the size of platform they can operate that is the main point. I still see the T-32 as an evolved T-31 but far more spikey and being a true second class Escort. The T-31s should be able to be upgrade to a similar capability of the T-32 over time, creating a class of twelve similar vessels. To me that would make sense. We should then have "mission" packs of various autonomous systems tailored to the appropriate vessel rather than trying to design vessels to match the autonomous platforms. Maybe this will change with the successor to the T-26 and T-31/32 in the late 2040s early 2050s, when autonomy has full matured and manning many platforms may be optional.

[Repulse]

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.

[JohnM]

My money is still on a slightly modified T31, with the 24 mm CAMM silos replacing the forward 40 mm gun (they fit there, as shown in recent videos), thus allowing for a full width mission bay amidships, like in the T26. I can also see other stuff like having a 127 mm gun for NGFS in place of the T31's 57 mm and adding a HMS (which the T31 should get anyway) be done. This would turn the AH140 design into a true mothership for little extra cost compared to the T31 and still be a lot cheaper than even a dumbed down T26... most of the extra cost would come from the unmanned stuff...

As to T31, I can see two in the IndoPac region and one in Gib, replacing the River B2s, plus one assigned to each of the LRGs, one in homewaters and one in the Gulf... I still say they should get a HMS, 24 CAMM, I-SSGW (handed over from the T23s as they retire) and countermeasures (both soft and hard)... the cost for all this should be marginal per ship (10-20 million?)...