Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Dobbo]

I don’t think the argument in favour of having a common Hull between T26 and T83 (or whatever or ends up becoming) is especially persuasive. As far as I can tell the only good arguments are industrial and financial (ie we have a line set up and can keep building with minor changes and at lower cost) meaning a better chance of more than 6x AAW frigates / destroyers.

However this is at the cost of operational, technical and strategic arguments. In particular, I don’t see how a T26
Hull could legitimately claim to be in position to carry at height a “son of Sampson” or SPY radar system without major modifications, nor do I think it could carry the number of VLS cells desired for a new generation top of the market AAW platform. It might be fine for the Aussies and Canadians in the mid-2020s, but I’m very sure the RN will want something very different in the mid-2030s.

This is some time in the future so I fully accept that times and technology change, and I also see the merits of it, but as things stand I don’t see it as a good basis to pursue the RNs flagship escort from 2030s to 2060s.

[NickC]

By the way, I think T31 as is has a good rationale

The RN rationale for the T31 was the non-negotiable condition for the build contract to meet the £250 million cost per ship, a limit imposed by the Treasury for the five ships for a total budget of £1,250 million following the budget busting cost of the T26, it was not based on any RN operational mission CONOP and as a result is as Lord Jim described it a Police Gunboat with a very long range and the size and shape of a Warship but that is it. The T31 rationale was and is a joke.

[Lord Jim]

I agree that the T-82 should be a clean slate design, what has been proposed is a class of between four and six evolved T-26 with more emphasis on AAW at the expense of being a Swiss Army Knife with a large Mission Bay that can bridge the gap in production between the T-26 and T-82, at the same time increasing the size and capability of the Escort force and possibly allowing the T-31s to be sold off and their crews reassigned.

[Caribbean]

Well as I said, I group the T-31 in with the Patrol force, be it large and with good range. It can be a useful "Presence" ship but only where it will be safe like the Caribbean or off the Isle of white

Having spent a good while in the Caribbean (quite literally, on occasion), I'm struggling to see any situation that would justify even 12 CAMM, and while battering a go-fast, or canoe loaded with ganga, with 57mm airburst might be quite entertaining to some, I suspect that the more rational might regard it as overkill. In fact I'm struggling to remember an occasion when an RN ship has even been fired on in the Caribbean. The RB2s are perfectly capable of handling the Caribbean alongside the USCG. Likewise, for patrolling the Isle of Wight, couldn't we just ask the ferry to take the long way round and give the first mate an air-rifle?

The T31 is equipped for more demanding patrol tasks, with the ability to protect itself against both surface and air attack (a la Houthi missile attack on US and Saudi ships). It's clearly not equipped for sustained combat, but it is equipped well enough to protect itself from a serious attack, back off, keep tabs on what's happening and to call in the cavalry if justified. I suspect that we will see them regularly patrolling the Horn of Africa around to the Gulf, intercepting dhows smuggling arms and drugs, arresting pirates and, on occasion, facing down Iranian boat swarms. They are not intended or equipped to participate in carrier escort duties, but will, I believe find frequent employment escorting civilian cargo ships and naval auxiliaries through less secure waters.

[Poiuytrewq]

...type 32 to come in at 600 million per ship .

Taking that as a hypothetical starting point what could be added to a basic T31?

Strip away the GFE and infrastructure costs, add in a sensible profit margin and inflation and a £300m unit cost seems plausible.

A T31 plus £300m could undoubtedly be a very capable escort. IMO the most inefficient way to spend the money would be to embark on a radical redesign of the T31 design. Adding elements from Absalon should be relatively straightforward and I suspect OMT will have done a lot of concept work already but a radial redesign would chew up the budget fast. Given that steel needs to be cut on the T32's within 3 to 4 years some urgency is needed.

Perhaps the best way to configure the T32 is to assess where the T31 is lacking. Clearly ASW is almost none existant and ASuW and AAW capabilities are basic and short range. On the plus side Range and Endurance are excellent as is crew habitability levels.

AAW
The Iver Huitfeildt is a very credible AAW Frigate, keep it simple and save money by adopting already proven systems. 32 CAMM should be a minimum.

ASW
2087 and 2150 are a must if the T32 is to be a credible escort for the LSG's. Off-board systems can follow later but they are unproven or nonexistent at present. Hybrid propulsion also a priority.

ASuW
One thing that can be ruled out straightaway, TLAM is not affordable within the £300m envelope. Another means of supporting the FCF ashore will have to be found. The Mk45 would seem to be the most realistic solution to the NGS problem but adding 16 Mk41 cells would also future proof the design. The addition of 8 or even 16 canister launched NSM (or equivalent) would give the T32's some real long range punch especially when combined with the Mk45/Vulcano capability. A 57mm in the B position, 2x 30mm's and a single Phalanx would provide an excellent layered defence for 21st century threats.

Superstructure Redesign
The T31 has lots of under utilised space already so any redesign just has to release the potential. A lack of connectivity between mission spaces is the biggest negative of the T31 design but this can be easily solved. Maximising the amidships space with a T26 style mission area which is directly connected to the hanger seems plausible within the budget envelope. Also enlarging the hanger and adding a deck crane to access the under flight deck mission space should be straightforward also.

IMO at £600m the T32 could be a real winner both for RN and Babcock as it would leave competing Frigates like the FDI in the dust.

The icing on the cake is that IF and it's a big IF the T32 was to possess a credible ASW performance in line with the outgoing T23's then the T32's could take on the TAPS role.

This would enable all 8 of the T26's to be available for escorting the CSG and both LSG's effectively adding another two T26's for global escort duties. Big win if it could be achieved.

[ArmChairCivvy]

access the under flight deck mission space should be straightforward also.

Wouldn't this space be "eaten up" if a tail is installed?

[donald_of_tokyo]

The RN rationale for the T31 was the non-negotiable condition for the build contract to meet the £250 million cost per ship, a limit imposed by the Treasury for the five ships for a total budget of £1,250 million following the budget busting cost of the T26, it was not based on any RN operational mission CONOP and as a result is as Lord Jim described it a Police Gunboat with a very long range and the size and shape of a Warship but that is it. The T31 rationale was and is a joke.

I do not agree T31 has no rationale.

1: See how T23s are used, many cases without SeaWolf, nor ASW crew, just because they are not needed for the tasks. Spending ~180 crew ship equipped with all the sensor, CMS, weapon systems not expected to be used, for such a basic tasks are not cost-efficient, especially when RN is struggling for CV's crew (actually, it has increased from initial 670 to 800, and it will continue to grow).

2: T31 is exactly designed as a Police Gunboat as you and Lord Jim-san stated. Perfect definition. Just I am positive to it. I think you still think "19 escort saga" remains. For me, on 2016 when I saw T31RFI, it was clear that RN is going for 14 (1st-tier) escorts and 5 Patrol frigate (or sloop or Police Gunboat).

Pretending T31 is an escort is a bad thing, I agree. But, it is not useless. For example, T31 exactly covers all the tasks what many here propose for "up-armed River B2".

PS By the way, as you know, T31 program is no more "a fixed price contract with all risks taken by the builder". At least, inflation and FX is covered by HMG. In this sense, its contract is more normal. It was clearly stated so when on contract. But, the contract states RN cannot change the requirements after the contract. Very reasonable thing, if Babcock wants to control the cost.

# Note I am not T31 supporter. Just saying it has a rationale, not totally useless. But I agree there were/are better solutions.

[NickC]

...type 32 to come in at 600 million per ship .

Taking that as a hypothetical starting point what could be added to a basic T31?

Strip away the GFE and infrastructure costs, add in a sensible profit margin and inflation and a £300m unit cost seems plausible.

A T31 plus £300m could undoubtedly be a very capable escort. IMO the most inefficient way to spend the money would be to embark on a radical redesign of the T31 design. Adding elements from Absalon should be relatively straightforward and I suspect OMT will have done a lot of concept work already but a radial redesign would chew up the budget fast. Given that steel needs to be cut on the T32's within 3 to 4 years some urgency is needed.

Perhaps the best way to configure the T32 is to assess where the T31 is lacking. Clearly ASW is almost none existant and ASuW and AAW capabilities are basic and short range. On the plus side Range and Endurance are excellent as is crew habitability levels.

AAW
The Iver Huitfeildt is a very credible AAW Frigate, keep it simple and save money by adopting already proven systems. 32 CAMM should be a minimum.

ASW
2087 and 2150 are a must if the T32 is to be a credible escort for the LSG's. Off-board systems can follow later but they are unproven or nonexistent at present. Hybrid propulsion also a priority.

ASuW
One thing that can be ruled out straightaway, TLAM is not affordable within the £300m envelope. Another means of supporting the FCF ashore will have to be found. The Mk45 would seem to be the most realistic solution to the NGS problem but adding 16 Mk41 cells would also future proof the design. The addition of 8 or even 16 canister launched NSM (or equivalent) would give the T32's some real long range punch especially when combined with the Mk45/Vulcano capability. A 57mm in the B position, 2x 30mm's and a single Phalanx would provide an excellent layered defence for 21st century threats.

Superstructure Redesign
The T31 has lots of under utilised space already so any redesign just has to release the potential. A lack of connectivity between mission spaces is the biggest negative of the T31 design but this can be easily solved. Maximising the amidships space with a T26 style mission area which is directly connected to the hanger seems plausible within the budget envelope. Also enlarging the hanger and adding a deck crane to access the under flight deck mission space should be straightforward also.

IMO at £600m the T32 could be a real winner both for RN and Babcock as it would leave competing Frigates like the FDI in the dust.

The icing on the cake is that IF and it's a big IF the T32 was to possess a credible ASW performance in line with the outgoing T23's then the T32's could take on the TAPS role.

This would enable all 8 of the T26's to be available for escorting the CSG and both LSG's effectively adding another two T26's for global escort duties. Big win if it could be achieved.

Do agree with you on a Mk2 Iver Huitfeldt, expect cost will be far the lowest cost option compared to a T26 variant or an all new design enabling funding larger number of AAW ships

A few thoughts
ASW, why fit S2087, surely that's best left to the T26 with its quiet and expensive HED propulsion system, T31/T32 diesels/gears are not silenced with rafts and enclosures, quiet hull not necessary for its primary AAW mission, if you do that will drive up costs, fit a HMS as with the T45 or a less costly VDS, eg CAPTAS 1.

Out of interest what do envisage the purpose of a large mission bay, asking as Australian Navy is moving ahead with the SEA 1905 MCM ships, even though they will have the Hunter/T26 with its large mission bay, presuming no sensible Australian Admiral will want its ~ £1 billion Hunter 'capital' ships playing tag with mines. Think any space available best be used for additional VLS cells.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...type 32 to come in at 600 million per ship .

Taking that as a hypothetical starting point what could be added to a basic T31?

Strip away the GFE and infrastructure costs, add in a sensible profit margin and inflation and a £300m unit cost seems plausible.

A T31 plus £300m could undoubtedly be a very capable escort.

But I think adding one more T26 will need only £800M or so. So, if T32 is a (£600M x5 =) £3B program, why not buy 4 more T26? This is my original question. (Lacks £200M? Easy, just replace the "127 mm gun + robotic arsenal" with 57 mm only in these 4-more hulls. Done).

By the way, thinking of powerful T32 is funny and not totally useless. I'm just proposing alternatives. But, I personally think, if T32 is to be a bit higher-end escort, I shall push "more T26". If 12 MCMV replacements are to be covered by ~4 off-the-shelf PSV and ~4 T32s (as lightly armed as T31, but with a soso large mission deck), it is also reasonable for me. It is exactly the "C3" concept.

[Caribbean]

ASW, why fit S2087, surely that's best left to the T26 with its quiet and expensive HED propulsion system, T31/T32 diesels/gears are not silenced with rafts and enclosures, quiet hull not necessary for its primary AAW mission

The IH parent design did, however, include sufficient engineering tolerances for such quietening measures to be fitted, as well as meeting NATO ASW noise standards, even without said quietening measures. I would presume that these tolerances were retained during the "redesign" for the A140 (which seem to amount to a) removing the Stanflex module "sockets" and replacing with a hole to fit non-stanflex systems into and b) closing off a boat-bay))

[donald_of_tokyo]

An old argument. Just a confession...

Looking back the 2016 decision, I really think it would have been better to increase T26 and improved River B2s. T31 program costs £2B (60% larger than the original £1.25B planned). With this £2B, I think RN can easily buy 2 more T26s (to make it 10 hulls), and still £400M remaining. It will be enough to built 2 more River B3 (or Avenger, may be 100m long version) armed with three 40mm 3P guns, a 20mm CIWS, and maybe LMM launchers (to make it a close-in fight specialist) and a Wildcat hangar.

8 T26 + 5 T31 + 5 River B2 OPVs
vs
10 T26 + 2 River B3 sloop + 5 River B2 OPVs

I like the latter.

But, anyway, it is tooooo late.

On the T32 discussion, I remain to take the same attitude. Just it. More T26 + Avenger or Venari (or alike) is more attractive as "T32" for me...

[Poiuytrewq]

Wouldn't this space be "eaten up" if a tail is installed?

Depends on the tail but from the dimensions that I have seen its a large space even for Captas4. As I understand it the dimensions were dictated by the leftover space from the Absalon design rather than a purposefully designed space to operate a VDS.

ASW, why fit S2087, surely that's best left to the T26 with its quiet and expensive HED propulsion system, T31/T32 diesels/gears are not silenced with rafts and enclosures, quiet hull not necessary for its primary AAW mission, if you do that will drive up costs, fit a HMS as with the T45 or a less costly VDS, eg CAPTAS 1.

The T32 is designed to escort the LSG's. It has to be credible above and below the surface. Just reverting the A140 back to an Iver Huitfeildt won't be sufficient.

Out of interest what do envisage the purpose of a large mission bay, asking as Australian Navy is moving ahead with the SEA 1905 MCM ships, even though they will have the Hunter/T26 with its large mission bay, presuming no sensible Australian Admiral will want its ~ £1 billion Hunter 'capital' ships playing tag with mines. Think any space available best be used for additional VLS cells.

Depends where it's operating and the current threat level etc. I'm expecting most RN MCM activities to be conducted from PSV type vessels in low threat areas. In higher threat areas it may be a T26/T32 that acts as host but it's more likely to be MRSS or Bay escorted by a T23/T45/T26 depending on threat.

Adding large mission bays is simply a way of adding versatility and future proofing the design. On-board systems will look very different in the 2040's.

But I think adding one more T26 will need only £800M or so.

Everything depends on this £800m number. We won't really know how much the unit cost of each T26 will be until the second batch is ordered.

Could the threat of the T32 be a way of keeping BAE's pricing keen?

Personally I'm expecting the second batch to come in around £1bn to £1.2bn each.

If BAE can deliver the second batch of three T26's for £2.4bn the T32 programme should be scrapped. Ditto if the second batch amounts to five T26's for £4bn.

I'm just proposing alternatives.

If the alternative to the T32 is building more T26's then it's fine with me but not if it means reducing hull numbers in the process

If BAE can get the second batch of T26's for £800m or less per vessel then I would expect RN to push hard for a rethink.

[Lord Jim]

Yes I would agree the T-31 could operate as a guard ship in the Gulf as long as it has the "Cavalry", available at very short notice in the form of air cover and "Real" warships. This is what has allowed the US to deploy USCG Cutters in the region. But to be forward deployed without this safety net severely limits where you can safely deploy the T-31, unless you bring along all of its "Escorts".

Just as the five T-31 do not increase escort numbers, building the T-32 as a USV/UUV mothership does not either. If we want to built a replacement for the Hunts and Sandowns on a large Frigate hull then fair enough but it will be a larger better protected MCV not an escort, just as the T-31 is a larger, better protected OPV.

If the T-32 is not a capable warship then the Royal Navy's escort force will remain at fourteen with a growing Patrol force of five B2 Rivers and four T-31 and an MCV force of between six and eight T-32s hopefully. So to the General Public the Government can give the impression the Navy is growing, and in some sense it will have, but not in its high end warfighting capability. But it will be able to conduct patrols covering a far larger area and the ships in each category will be more capable than the ones that preceded them. This can be seen as a win if you look at the whole package, as long as the various vessels are not asked to carry out roles they are not capable of or designed for.

[Tempest414]

Back in the day I said I would have liked 9 type 26 and 8 type 31 plus 10 100 meter Venari type ships

However HMG will not be buying more type 26 so 5 type 32 it will be its all about keeping Babcocks going now it has started

[serge750]

If the T31 costs 400m each? & the requirement for the T32 is LSG support, would adding a few meters along with reconfiguring the boat bays to be bigger along with better access, ad a hull sonar, bigger gun ( taken from the second batch of T26, replace with 57mm ) for NGS & cannister launched SSM but increase CAMM load ( maybe even mk41 ) surely that could be done for less than 600m each ?....

Definatly think we could replace the 127mm gun from the second batch of T26 to 57mm, transfer to the T32, also in time replace the T45 gun with 57mm if its save money,

[tomuk]

Yes I would agree the T-31 could operate as a guard ship in the Gulf as long as it has the "Cavalry", available at very short notice in the form of air cover and "Real" warships. This is what has allowed the US to deploy USCG Cutters in the region. But to be forward deployed without this safety net severely limits where you can safely deploy the T-31, unless you bring along all of its "Escorts".

Again what makes the T31 not a real escort? A few more Sea Ceptor? A bigger main gun? Hull mounted sonar?
In the Gulf would 30mm and 4.5" be beter or worse than 40mm and 57mm with 3P rounds?

[Repulse]

I personally cannot see why the T31s cannot be the LRG escorts.

The best thing would be to build a 5 ship B3 River class - effectively a B2 with a multipurpose Wildcat / UAV hanger which can act as a mission bay instead. This would allow three of the B2s take over from the B1s, and give the RN a core MHPC design. £800mn max.

Then spend the rest on real war fighting capabilities.

[Dobbo]

Isn’t a lot of what the T32 might be (and what it needs to be) subject to what the T83 ends up being, and how many of them the RN ends up having?

For example, if T83 is an all singing all dancing 15,000 ton cruiser with ABM, AAW, ASW, ASuW and space for a couple of helicopters and UAV and UUVs you can bet there will only be about 4 of them (I think 6 is scraping it to the bone) - which puts additional pressure in the T32 to be capable of performing some reasonably complicated tasks because the T83 will inevitably be chained to the CSG.

[Tempest414]

That is why we need to dedicate classes to primary roles i.e

Type 83 = AAW
Type 26 = ASW
Type 31 = GP
Type 32 = LRG

This helps to focus the design and keep costs down. As far as type 32 goes maybe the way forward is to fit a full width Absalon hangar with large side opernings making it more of a mission bay however if it was to be dedicated to LRG ops then unmanned ops should be placed on other ships in the LRG and the Type 32 should be all about defence and support

[SW1]

I thought the narrative was toward a distributed sensor and shooter network in the face of high end threats yet the navy proposal here seem to be accelerating down the route of ever larger more exquisite units that cost a fortune and as such are in tiny numbers.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I thought the narrative was toward a distributed sensor and shooter network

Well it is the narrative for the USN and also for European Missile Defence (the ships 'playing' mainly the shooter role).
-the USN has the numbers for implementing it
- do we?

[Ron5]

I thought the narrative was toward a distributed sensor and shooter network in the face of high end threats yet the navy proposal here seem to be accelerating down the route of ever larger more exquisite units that cost a fortune and as such are in tiny numbers.

That's pretty much what the RAF is doing.

Clearly, with Rivers, Type 31 & Type 32, the Navy is not.

[Repulse]

I’d say a RN concept equivalent to the Loyal Concept is exactly what should happen.

Start with an optionally/lean crewed ship capable of towing a TAS with 12 CAMM, and move up the capability and automation curve. Doesn’t have to be large - perhaps again something similar to a slightly extended River Class. I’d argue something that could be done for £150-£200mn per unit if backed by a factory.

Pair a couple or more of these with a T45, T26 or T32, or even an Ocean Survey Ship, and suddenly there is scale.

To pay for it, forget the T32 and make the T31 the LRG escort.

[NickC]

Wouldn't this space be "eaten up" if a tail is installed?

Depends on the tail but from the dimensions that I have seen its a large space even for Captas4. As I understand it the dimensions were dictated by the leftover space from the Absalon design rather than a purposefully designed space to operate a VDS.

ASW, why fit S2087, surely that's best left to the T26 with its quiet and expensive HED propulsion system, T31/T32 diesels/gears are not silenced with rafts and enclosures, quiet hull not necessary for its primary AAW mission, if you do that will drive up costs, fit a HMS as with the T45 or a less costly VDS, eg CAPTAS 1.

The T32 is designed to escort the LSG's. It has to be credible above and below the surface. Just reverting the A140 back to an Iver Huitfeildt won't be sufficient.

I was suggesting fitting a sonar, adequate but not a full fat expensive S2087 which designed for operation in the open blue seas not the littorals.

A question even if LRG or carrier escorted by a T26 how many miles distance would it need to be stationed from amphibs/carrier for sonar be effective, 50 or 100 nm? due to the noise generated from amphib/carriers with their noisy low speed diesels, making the T26 isolated and more vulnerable to air attack with only its limited CIWS AAW systems, (QNLZ while docked in Portsmouth had to use its own diesel generators as no land power was available at the time, it kept up half the town all night due to noise created) so would seriously degrade any escort ship sonar capability. The USN for ASW use SOCA, Submarine Operations Coordinating Authority which coordinates SSN's that are assigned to or support a task group.

A second and more importantly why is RN resourcing LRG when neglecting their primary mission with the near zero number of effective escorts for merchantmen with only numbers to support the carriers

Roskill who wrote the official RN history of naval operations of WWII, “If it is inevitable that, in maritime war, the actions fought by the warships and aircraft gain most attention, it must never be forgotten that the purpose of those actions is, nearly always, the protection of the merchantmen"

Churchill “The Battle of the Atlantic was the dominating factor all through the war. Never for one moment could we forget that everything happening elsewhere, on land, at sea or in the air depended ultimately on its outcome.”

USN Admiral Zumwalt prioritised control of sea lanes second only to nuclear second strike capability, “Heavy reliance on sealift is an integral part of the U.S. role as a sea power. It emphasizes the absolute need to be able to control the seas if the nation is to exist.” the sentiments more applicable to the UK than the US being a small island.

[Ron5]

That's a plate of anti UK military drivel thrown against a wall to see if anything sticks.