Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
It would probably be easy and cheap to have T32 be a modified T31, where the 24 CAMM farm goes behind the radar mast (like in the T26), which would enable a full width mission bay amidships, with 8xSSM mounted on top. Add some silencing by mounting the engines on absorbers, add a HMS and a VDS and you have a great GP ship that can be a mothership to a host of UVs...
Of one needs/wants more VLS cells, I believe the parent IH design has two deck-penetrating 76mm guns, so the forward 40mm gun could probably be replaced by at least another 12 CAMM or even some ExLS...
Of one needs/wants more VLS cells, I believe the parent IH design has two deck-penetrating 76mm guns, so the forward 40mm gun could probably be replaced by at least another 12 CAMM or even some ExLS...
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
All heading in the right direction....
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... conference
The devil will be in the detail.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... conference
The devil will be in the detail.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
May be they will 'double' correct that,,, considering the ever bigger autonomous systems. Instead of doing this https://i1.wp.com/www.globalsecurity.or ... jpg?zoom=2Timmymagic wrote:. If only T31 could have been built with a proper mission bay....then we could just build 10 rather than 5....
doing this (but 'bigger')
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... egUIARCiAQ
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Things is....with its lower end, mainly defensive weapons fit (particularly for near shore threats) the T31 would make more sense to carry MCM kit than a GP or ASW oriented T32. That was the beauty of the BMT Venator 90. It was armed enough to deploy MCM gear near shore without needing an escort. Hell that sort of vessel would be useful with a proper medium calibre gun as you're more likely to risk them close to shore to conduct NGFS. Instead we've got our prime ASW asset (T26) armed with our best naval gun, and our low end vessel armed with a 57mm....its so mixed up. Add in mission bays on T32 when they'd be better suited on T31, 4.5 on T45 when 57mm suits it more, old SSM's, missing hangars on LPD's and we're in a real muddle...JohnM wrote:It would probably be easy and cheap to have T32 be a modified T31, where the 24 CAMM farm goes behind the radar mast (like in the T26), which would enable a full width mission bay amidships, with 8xSSM mounted on top. Add some silencing by mounting the engines on absorbers, add a HMS and a VDS and you have a great GP ship that can be a mothership to a host of UVs...
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Maybe the T32 would be an extended T31 with a plug around where the boat bays are to extend the length of said boat bays, & if they are built at Rosyth they should be up to the challenge as they have just built the T31, hopefully cheapish thing to do if they really want to grow back the escort fleet to nearer 2010 levels...
Even better if they had a sonar, bigger main gun 5 inch & mk41 VLS, maybe what the T31 should of been....
Then try to sell the T31 at knockdown prices ( as usual with the MOD ) then build some more T32 to replace them while Bae build the later T26 then T45 replacement
I could see New Zealand buying them for 100m each then up arming them....
Even better if they had a sonar, bigger main gun 5 inch & mk41 VLS, maybe what the T31 should of been....
Then try to sell the T31 at knockdown prices ( as usual with the MOD ) then build some more T32 to replace them while Bae build the later T26 then T45 replacement
I could see New Zealand buying them for 100m each then up arming them....
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I like JohnM's thinking.
To develop it further, at DSEI 2019, Babcock told me, Type 31 admidships could be stretched (is there time?) and Captas 1 or 2 (I think it was the latter) could be fitted. I presume the torpedo decoy could be fitted. There was some rumour of a batch 2 variant, which could speed the design changes. I would leave the guns alone. I would go for full NBC, instead of citadel, like the new RNZN supply ship. The MTU generators cold be the same as Type 26. ExLS by the mast could provide 48 Sea Ceptor missiles. Type 26's mission bay can't be that expensive. Babcock told me Type 31 was at NATO ASW quietening standards.
There is a no change design agreement, which could change at no cost with an extra order. The additional cost, could be funded as an extra to the defence budget, as well as providing 6+ MCM motherships.
I think MP's will not be happy with the capacity cuts in all three services nor our allies and friends, so await some "U" turns .
To develop it further, at DSEI 2019, Babcock told me, Type 31 admidships could be stretched (is there time?) and Captas 1 or 2 (I think it was the latter) could be fitted. I presume the torpedo decoy could be fitted. There was some rumour of a batch 2 variant, which could speed the design changes. I would leave the guns alone. I would go for full NBC, instead of citadel, like the new RNZN supply ship. The MTU generators cold be the same as Type 26. ExLS by the mast could provide 48 Sea Ceptor missiles. Type 26's mission bay can't be that expensive. Babcock told me Type 31 was at NATO ASW quietening standards.
There is a no change design agreement, which could change at no cost with an extra order. The additional cost, could be funded as an extra to the defence budget, as well as providing 6+ MCM motherships.
I think MP's will not be happy with the capacity cuts in all three services nor our allies and friends, so await some "U" turns .
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Apparently the “24 Frigates” mentioned by the PM relate to:
6 x T45
4 x T26
5 x T31
And 9 x T23s...
Speculation but is the RN heading towards having 13 ASW Frigates (8 T26 + 5 T32)
6 x T45
4 x T26
5 x T31
And 9 x T23s...
Speculation but is the RN heading towards having 13 ASW Frigates (8 T26 + 5 T32)
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Eh? That doesn't make much sense...Repulse wrote:Apparently the “24 Frigates” mentioned by the PM relate to:
6 x T45
4 x T26
5 x T31
And 9 x T23s...
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Probably meant 9 x type 32 patrol craft (I mean frigate.... wink, wink, nod, nod.)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Have you got a source please?Repulse wrote:Apparently the “24 Frigates” mentioned by the PM relate to:
6 x T45
4 x T26
5 x T31
And 9 x T23s...
Speculation but is the RN heading towards having 13 ASW Frigates (8 T26 + 5 T32)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
That would be a large increase from the 4 or 5 expected to make to make it to 2029/2030. It would also in all likelihood be eye-wateringly expensive.Repulse wrote:And 9 x T23s...
It would be cheaper and much more efficient to just build more Frigates.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Just to make everyone's day here is the great Lewis Page in the DT
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... -spending/
(I din't know where to post this..)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... -spending/
(I din't know where to post this..)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
RichardIC wrote:Have you got a source please?
”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
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Thank you.
So we'll still be in the transition period as the T23 go.
By 2030 half of T26 delivered; all Type 31; Type 32 about to come on stream.
As long as...
So we'll still be in the transition period as the T23 go.
By 2030 half of T26 delivered; all Type 31; Type 32 about to come on stream.
As long as...
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Someone is going to have to pay a pretty penny to extend the life of T23s by that much...
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
2 T26 ready to sail with the MTFRichardIC wrote:By 2030 half of T26 delivered; all Type 31
1 on TAP, but ready to join in (any T23 to step in)
1 in maintenance
-------
1 T31 fwrd based
1 on world tour
1 sailing in the Caribbean- Falklands- UK triangle, to relieve the RB2s as appropriate
1 as the Fleet Ready Escort
1 in maintenance
RB1s since long gone;
slack = whichever T23s can (by then ) still soldier on, on a full-time basis
So,
1.a fully expeditionary MTF
2. EZ+BOTs
3. Sea Denial by SSNs (where we choose to, not in many places simultaneously)
... and of course
4. CASD (outsourced for the navy to run), by then with many more warheads; also our stand-by should the OpFor resort to tactical nukes?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Most already going through extensive Lifex. Already planned to run some until mid 2030s.JohnM wrote:Someone is going to have to pay a pretty penny to extend the life of T23s by that much...
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Still, it’s probably not feasible to keep 9 in service until 2030... this came out today in Navy Lookout...RichardIC wrote:Most already going through extensive Lifex. Already planned to run some until mid 2030s.JohnM wrote:Someone is going to have to pay a pretty penny to extend the life of T23s by that much...
https://www.navylookout.com/when-will-t ... estroyers/
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Speeding up the T26 build would be ideal but for what purpose If no additional T26's are ordered?JohnM wrote:Still, it’s probably not feasible to keep 9 in service until 2030... this came out today in Navy Lookout...
The most realistic way to hit 24 escorts by 2030, both commissioned and 'in build', is to construct the T31's and T32's concurrently in Rosyth.
Another option worth be to build a modified Leander design concurrently with the T26's at Govan/Scotstoun but that seems less likely.
One thing is virtually guaranteed however....RN won't have 24 escorts by 2030 regardless of what Boris says.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Good info (including the end statement: 'that's all we can know for now')
"In order to keep frigate numbers from dipping too low in the mid-2020s, the RN plans to extend the life of HMS Lancaster and HMS Iron Duke beyond their original OSD, probably for an extra 1-2 years.[...]
Further details about the future of the RN’s fleet will be published in the White Paper next week."
Command Paper, White Paper... fog of war?
"In order to keep frigate numbers from dipping too low in the mid-2020s, the RN plans to extend the life of HMS Lancaster and HMS Iron Duke beyond their original OSD, probably for an extra 1-2 years.[...]
Further details about the future of the RN’s fleet will be published in the White Paper next week."
Command Paper, White Paper... fog of war?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Would also lend credence to someone building a 'factory' to be able to build two frigates concurrently... in a batch of fivePoiuytrewq wrote:The most realistic way to hit 24 escorts by 2030, both commissioned and 'in build', is to construct the T31's and T32's concurrently in Rosyth.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
True but the current T31 build schedule is already pretty ambitious without lobbing a class of five T32's into the mix.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Would also lend credence to someone building a 'factory' to be able to build two frigates concurrently... in a batch of five
A balance between ambitious enough, without being too ambitious, is critical now.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I agree. I meant the economics of payback for that factory investment, not that there would be concurrent production of the T31s and T32sPoiuytrewq wrote: already pretty ambitious without lobbing a class of five T32's into the mix.
... whereas I have been saying for a long time that the ASW and AAW versions of the T26 hull are likely to be dovetailed towards the end of the production run of the former
As @ Ron says about AFVs, it is not a T-Ford production line how they are made
... and for frigates/ destroyers it is even less so (but sharing hulls, propulsion - perhaps shed of all the ASW niceties and finesse - there are still economies of scale; and also potential to gain on the lead time from design to build)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
In contrast to what's being said above. The easiest way to get to 24 escorts being available in 2030 is to keep five more T23s available!From Navy Command to 2030
Here's how a revised schedule for the retirement and replacement of the T23 frigates might look.
Prior to 2030 3xT31 and 2xT26 are due to be commissioned then ...
You can see the schedule on page 8 of the Navy Command to 2030 post but for some reason I can't get it to transfer to here
So in 2030 there would be 6xT45, 3xT26, 4xT31 and 11xT23.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The RN is pretty good at reusing systems between classes and has always been so. Except for the Type 31 which is an outlier that's still too young to be judged as being successful.ArmChairCivvy wrote:but sharing hulls, propulsion - perhaps shed of all the ASW niceties and finesse - there are still economies of scale; and also potential to gain on the lead time from design to build
"Sharing hulls" doesn't mean anything. If you mean hull shape below the water line, then once again, the RN is good at that and there's a long line of examples. If you mean actual bits of steel (above and below the water), that's pretty pointless and doesn't and shouldn't happen.