Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Ron5]

OK let’s be fair. They didn’t slow Astute. We’ve been over this. Prvious governments allowed Barrow to run down from 15000 to 3000 and then both sides strained every sinew to get it back on track (with a little help from EB)

So politicians caused it. And you forget to account for the additional costs of building them all at the same rate instead of taking productivity savings.

T26 and CVF were messed up because we had a fellow called Brown calling the shots who was intensely interested in the politics of Scottish jobs and keeping the SNP at bay.

Whatever motivation he might or might not have had, he was a politician right?

QE was never going to be STOVL. No Steam. The dithering was one dud SOS for about six months in 2011. Didn’t cost much because he got himself sacked

Still significant money wasted by a .... politician.

T45 GTs were a disaster

Chosen by a ..... politician against the advice of the builders. Who compounded that mistake by refusing to fund enough onshore testing.

T31? You get what you pay for and after all the above there wasn’t much money left.

The T31 program was created by the Treasury with its budget being pulled out of Geo Osborne's ass.

[Ron5]

J Tattersall Wrote:

What is so terrible about 12?

.
Simple answer is; When you need a THIRTEENTH, you won’t have it and it is likely to prove Very unlucky for you, your Shipmates and your Ship, let alone the cause/ operation which you may have been deployed for..

But how do you know you'll need 13 or even 12 for that matter?

Operational analysis during the requirements phase. Something that wasn't done for the T31s.

[Ron5]

QE was never going to be STOVL

That's news the 2 crews serving on our two STOVL carriers.

Don't be a prick. Obviously a typo given the context.

[Ron5]

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

Cameron and his merry men announced they would increase the number of escorts. He should therefore have funded that decision.

[Ron5]

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.

You clearly have no idea how the T23's came into being.

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%.

And don't come back whining that's not enough money. It's obviously a very sensible amount and the program is not unlike how the Lancaster bomber was developed.

[Ron5]

Constantly changing the specification during build has proven to be slow and costly (and the result is often still deficient in some aspect or other).

Do you think this has happened with the T26?

[Ron5]

the T31 concept was specifically designed to avoid it

On the contrary, I think it was specifically designed to accommodate that. Though at the batch level, rather than at the individual ship level.

after the Frigates recieve a such a costly major refit

Agreed, the idea is to NOT carry out major structural refits, but that is not what I was talking about, apologies for lack of clarity.

I was thinking at the individual system level, so, for instance, say the Dragonfire DEW comes to maturity, the forward 40mm could be lifted out and a Dragonfire system installed. As long as a standard has been adopted for the physical space requirement within the hull (say one ten-foot container, as an example, or a vertically-mounted TEU - it could be anything, as long as it's a known standard), physical integration should be relatively simple, as systems could be designed ab initio for a known set of dimensions (one of the costs of Stanflex was that existing weapons systems had to be redesigned to fit the custom module size). The first such upgrade would require work to integrate with CMS etc, but after that it becomes a "drop-in" (as much as that can be true with complex systems) upgrade available to the entire fleet (and would be physically transferrable to future hulls).

So your idea is to keep the midlife refits but make them cheaper? Good luck with that

[Poiuytrewq]

Though at the batch level, rather than at the individual ship level.

This is exactly the reason why I think the modest upgrades proposed previously need to be added now. We are led to believe that the T31 programme will only have one batch of five vessels before moving on to the T32. At least that's what current planning proposes currently.

If the class undergo major refits between 2032 and 2037 and add an additional 12 CAMM, 8 NSM, a hull mounted sonar and Captas 4-Compact for example then the temptation for HMG to cancel or postpone the T32 programme will be huge, especially if the black hole in the MoD budget persists.

Big difference between Spiral Development and FFBNW.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Though at the batch level, rather than at the individual ship level.

This is exactly the reason why I think the modest upgrades proposed previously need to be added now. We are led to believe that the T31 programme will only have one batch of five vessels before moving on to the T32. At least that's what current planning proposes currently.

If the class undergo major refits between 2032 and 2037 and add an additional 12 CAMM, 8 NSM, a hull mounted sonar and Captas 4-Compact for example then the temptation for HMG to cancel or postpone the T32 programme will be huge, especially if the black hole in the MoD budget persists.

Big difference between Spiral Development and FFBNW.

Up arming T31 around 2030-35 will be much cheaper than newly building T32. As we know, T32 is yet to be budgeted. Even T31 operating cost looks like yet to be budgeted (according to NAO report). So, it can be said "we cannot be optimistic" as well as "anything can happen". Large variety of future prospect.

List of choices?

Around 2030, RN will have options to
- £300-400M in total : up-arm all five T31s to have "24 CAMM, 8 SSM, and a HMS (also CAPTAS-4?)"
- £1.5-2B : order 5 new T32, as an up-armed version of T31 (no additional boat handling)
- OR with £1.5-2B : order 2 more T26
- £2.5-3B : order 5 new T32, with "24 CAMM, 8 SSM, and a HMS (also CAPTAS-4?)" and "better than T26" USV handling gears
- OR with £2.5-3B : OR order 3 or 4 more T26

Not a bad list.

[Repulse]

This is exactly the reason why I think the modest upgrades proposed previously need to be added now.

If the T31 is the replacement for the 5 forward based B2 Rivers then I disagree all 5 need it. 12 CAMM and the 57mm/40mm guns are perfectly adequate for FIGS and WIGS. Where the focus should be on the upgrades should be are the 2 EoS and the one operating out of Gibraltar - I’d focus the cash on these and for gods sake include ASW capability.

[Repulse]

The T32 requirement / design will depend on its role within the context of the broader fleet. I personally can see the likely outcome being the role of the LRG escort with the T26 style mission bay for autonomous MCM/survey/ASW assets.

An alternative would be a semi-autonomous ASW frigate - but that seems further away.

[J. Tattersall]

12 CAMM and the 57mm/40mm guns are perfectly adequate for FIGS and WIGS.

Indeed.

For me the issue is not armament at PASE/IOC but rather that we're buying a platform of sufficient volume to allow easier upgrading through life as the situation demands it.

[tomuk]

The genesis of T32

1) New autonomous mine hunting equipment no longer requires specialised vessel instead a mothership required
2) RN wants to increase size of escort fleet
3) The need to keep Babcock Rosyth open with drumbeat of orders

Answer a revised T31 with improved weapons and ASV handling.

T31 isn't replacing the River B2s the forced purchase of the B2s has luckily allowed the RN to cover for low availability of T23 due to LIFEX. And in future ready replacements for the B1s.

There is no need for an LRG escort the LRG will be covered by whatever is available and the perceived risk of the operation. In the future with 24 escorts inc T32 there will just be more possibilities.

On T45 and the WR21 it was as much a child of US politics as UK politics. Westinghouse Rolls 21 was a make work for Westinghouse, keep GE on its toes scheme by Pentagon/Capitol Hill we were just left holding the baby which we had bought into more.

[tomuk]

12 CAMM and the 57mm/40mm guns are perfectly adequate for FIGS and WIGS.

In reality surely a single 30mm is adequate or even 20mm for FIGS and WIGS based on recent/current deployments.

[Poiuytrewq]

List of choices

Given that list of choices the Treasury will obviously demand the cheapest option.

Better to grasp the nettle now.

[J. Tattersall]

12 CAMM and the 57mm/40mm guns are perfectly adequate for FIGS and WIGS.

In reality surely a single 30mm is adequate or even 20mm for FIGS and WIGS based on recent/current deployments.

You make an interesting point which almost, but not quite, brings the debate back to the level of armament on batch 2 Rivers.

The harsh reality is that for hundreds of years the RN, and other navies, have had to make difficult choices balancing a small number of heavily armed ships versus some sort of high low mix. In the 1980s this was characterized by T82/42/22 versus Leander and T21. In the 20s/30s it's T45/26/23 versus T31/32.

[J. Tattersall]

List of choices

Given that list of choices the Treasury will obviously demand the cheapest option.

Better to grasp the nettle now.

In my experience they don't actually demand the cheapest option; rather they are very interested in how value for money is demonstrated together with the affordability of the total defence programme.

[Poiuytrewq]

If the T31 is the replacement for the 5 forward based B2 Rivers then I disagree all 5 need it.

How would that work in practical terms?

The T31's would have to cover the Falklands, APT(N), APT(S), Kipion, FRE, escort LRG(N) and LRG(S) plus whatever the RB2's have been doing in Singapore and Gibraltar. That is not to mention the UK's NATO commitments.

There is absolutely no way five T31's can cover all that.

12 CAMM and the 57mm/40mm guns are perfectly adequate for FIGS and WIGS.

It would be completely adequate but also completely unnecessary. Sending a Frigate permanently to guard the Falklands seems like a waste of resources and a Bay or a Wave is a much better option for operations in the Caribbean. A Frigate ocassionly supporting these vessels via APT(N) and APT(S) would seen proportionate.

I personally can see the likely outcome being the role of the LRG escort with the T26 style mission bay for autonomous MCM/survey/ASW assets.

How many Frigates in the world can currently do this? How many nations around the world are proposing to enable their Frigates to do this?

I am not saying that it is bad idea or that it shouldn't happen but it wouldn't be straightforward, cheap or fast.

If the idea is to adapt the T31 with a T26 mission bay and increase armament levels up to an escort level then it would probably be cheaper to build more T26's.

Spending another £500m or £1bn+ on more design work for a THIRD class of Frigates seems like an unnecessary extravagance when money is tight and escorts are in short supply.

[Repulse]

Spending another £500m or £1bn+ on more design work for a THIRD class of Frigates seems like an unnecessary extravagance when money is tight and escorts are in short supply.

I’ve often thought the same, and would still agree on the whole for manned (major and minor) warships an evolution of the current T45/T26/T31/River designs should be sufficient. However, I do believe with the advent of semi-autonomous/ autonomous warships the design race is starting to hot up and to remain relevant the UK needs to be part of that.

[Repulse]

How many Frigates in the world can currently do this? How many nations around the world are proposing to enable their Frigates to do this?

The whole USN LCS programme was based on just this. The principal is still valid - warship designs focused on Littoral operations - but that particular implementation was flawed by over engineering and misunderstanding. One big point is that it is not supposed to be just another blue water warship, and I for one are not hung up on the word Frigate.

[SD67]

QE was never going to be STOVL

That's news the 2 crews serving on our two STOVL carriers.

Don't be a prick. Obviously a typo given the context.

Sorry chaps, typo, I meant "always" not "never"

[SD67]

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.

[Poiuytrewq]

advent of semi-autonomous/ autonomous warships

it is not supposed to be just another blue water warsh

My concern is when RN try to break new ground hull numbers start to drop alarmingly.

Increasing the escort fleet by using funding allocated to the MCMV replacements is a noble aim but the likelihood of a budget blowout is massive if too many capabilities are cramed into one hull.

If the plan is a modified Absalon then I can see the logic but if it is a clean sheet design I think the T32 will never materialise. Much more likely that the T31's will be upgraded and some modestly sized logistic support vessels are built cheaply to cover the MCM duties.

[Repulse]

My concern is when RN try to break new ground hull numbers start to drop alarmingly.

It’s a fair concern, but if the RN doesn’t try to break new ground it will be left behind. I do also like the more cautious mentality that seems to be being applied nowadays. I would say a semi autonomous ASW “sloop” perhaps based on an extended River class would be a safe / lower cost start.

If the plan is a modified Absalon then I can see the logic but if it is a clean sheet design I think the T32 will never materialise.

I think there is zero chance of the T32 being a brand new design, a variation of the one of the existing ones with the T31 or River Class being the most likely. I flip flop, but with my export hat on an Absalon derivative isn’t a bad approach.

[SW1]

I’d be putting the unmanned systems in an RFA to transport them by sea and let the frigates get on with being frigates.