Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Caribbean]

Small shallow fraught vessels carrying Large Guns were not classed as Gunboats, as you have inferred. Such vessels were in fact called Monitors.

I take your point, but I would have said that monitors were really linear descendants of the floating batteries of yesteryear (the Crimea and the Great Siege of Gibraltar spring to mind), specialised to carry only one or two very large guns (usually 8" plus, IIRC). The modern gunboat is what evolved first into the torpedo boat destroyer, then into the WW1 destroyer onwards. Small (50-60m), fast and with between 4 and 6 inch guns (4.7" seems to have been popular - so not far off the current 4.5" gun)

[Tempest414]

I believe the main principle of the LRG would be to provide a low key forward based task group, capable of getting involved in low threat maritime environments projecting SF type formations on to the land or Littoral zones. The whole point is that there doesn’t need to be a show of force as such - you want it below the radar, and not overly sticking out.

Well the RN are showing no signs of this in there actions as the LRG has been fixed over the past few years with

2018 - 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD's ,1 x T-45 , 1 x Point class , 2 x MCM deployed off Oman
2019 - 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD , Argus , 1 x T-23 , 1 x Point class deployed Baltic
2020 - 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD , 1 x T-45 deployed Med
2021 - 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD , 1 x T-23 deployed LRG North
2021 - 1 x Carrier ( in LHA ) , 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD , 3 x Escorts deployed Joint Warrior 21/02

What you’ve described it a poorly equipped armada.

So 1 x LHA capable of carrying 10 f-35 and 10 helicopters , 1 x LSD , 1 x Wave class and 3 escorts is not that far out at all

[JohnM]

However, on this one, the T31 in general is that it will not be cheap. It will have twice the crew, the more complex it is the more complex it is to forward base, and all these FFBNW modules will need to be purchased, maintained and crewed (and this increases as our expectation of availability of these FFBNW modules increases). My guess, even without the FFBNW module dream they will be four times the cost to operate as a B2.

Given people are willing to pay this cost ahead of other capabilities -what is the strategic requirement these Patrol Frigates will be fulfilling? And what specifically in addition to a B2 Patrol Sloop (and where required a B2 / RFA combination)?

I honestly do not understand it.

It’s very simple… while the B2s can perform the same constabulary and show-the-flag missions in peacetime, they cannot be up-armed into a proper “fighty” frigate if things heat up… a properly FFBNW T31 can, very rapidly in fact, like I pointed out. As to the all the unmanned kit, it’s coming in force and T31 can take a lot more of it than a B2…

[donald_of_tokyo]

I agree the naming of T31 is not appropriate.
1: "Destroyer" is AAW specialist 1st-tier escort.
2: "Frigate" is ASW specialist 1st-tier escort.
3: "Frigate" is also a "GP frigate", which are historically armed as corvette, with frigate-level larger hull?

The jump between 1 and 2 is almost zero, while that between 2 and 3 is huge.

Shall better call it (Long-range) Corvette or Sloop, to clearly identify its difference to 1 and 2.

Once again any and always to put Type 31 down and the shit keeps coming

Type 31 is a perfectly good global patrol frigate . And the fact is that type 26 with its size and armament and systems should be classed a ASW destroyer and then this would be put to bed as a WW2 frigate was a class of ship that sat between a corvette and destroyer which type 31 dose

I am never putting T31 down. Just judging it properly, based on T31RFI = the requirement list. Current T31 (without up-arming) well fits it.

Calling T31 a "patrol frigate" is fine for me. What is important is to distinguish T31 from T26 and T45. Italian PPA (Multi-Purpose Offshore Patrol Vessel) has a pennant number with "P". Comparing T31 and PPA, calling T31 a "Multi-Purpose Global Patrol Sloop" with a pennant number of "K" has no problem. Eventually, even the world may follow. I think it is a class which includes, PPA, T31, LCS, and Japanese FFM. Actually, there are growing number of such ships in the world; this is simply because "Frigate/Destroyer" has grown similar to "cruiser" in the old days.

Proposing to call T26 an ASW destroyer is, practically the same to proposing T31 as Sloop, I think. Downgrading the meaning of "Frigate". Anyway, Sloop or Corvette is kind of a new naming for RN, and RN can (re)-defined its meaning. Modern Corvette originates from Flower class "ASW whaler", defined in 1939. 80 years has been passed, and new definition is nothing wrong, I think. As the whole world is looking for "good naming" of "typical corvette-level armed multi-purpose global patrol vessels", thinking about its naming is not that pointless, I think.

[Ron5]

Seems to be two schools of thought:

Pessimists that think the T31 sucks because of what it will be at service entry and ...

... optimists that think the Type 31 is wonderful because of what it may become.

[Repulse]

It’s very simple… while the B2s can perform the same constabulary and show-the-flag missions in peacetime, they cannot be up-armed into a proper “fighty” frigate if things heat up… a properly FFBNW T31 can, very rapidly in fact, like I pointed out. As to the all the unmanned kit, it’s coming in force and T31 can take a lot more of it than a B2

You are right, with significant investment and training you could be able to fly weapon containers / PODS the other side of the world and upgrade a FFBNW frigate. However, my point is it’s not cheap - you will need to have said PODS lying around ready to go along with spare personnel - that takes money.

But you seem to be missing my question. I have no problem with recognising a T31 is more fighty than a B2 - but I do not understand what you are trying to achieve? Fight whom? At best, you will have a ship capable enough of annoying someone which will then be quickly sunk. My view is if you a looking for a fight and want to poke a bear or dragon, best go armed and with friends.

[Jake1992]

Seems to be two schools of thought:

Pessimists that think the T31 sucks because of what it will be at service entry and ...

... optimists that think the Type 31 is wonderful because of what it may become.

I think the pessimist stand point has good reason to be, after all the talk of what the T45s were to get yet still havnt and look very unlikely to either.

The T31s are going to be very low level in offensive and defensive measures for most of if not all of their life’s unless and change is made.

[Repulse]

Well the RN are showing no signs of this in there actions as the LRG has been fixed over the past few years with

2018 - 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD's ,1 x T-45 , 1 x Point class , 2 x MCM deployed off Oman
2019 - 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD , Argus , 1 x T-23 , 1 x Point class deployed Baltic
2020 - 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD , 1 x T-45 deployed Med
2021 - 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD , 1 x T-23 deployed LRG North
2021 - 1 x Carrier ( in LHA ) , 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD , 3 x Escorts deployed Joint Warrior 21/02

What you’ve described it a poorly equipped armada.

So 1 x LHA capable of carrying 10 f-35 and 10 helicopters , 1 x LSD , 1 x Wave class and 3 escorts is not that far out at all

I suggest you read: https://www.navylookout.com/understandi ... p-concept/



The principal is that the LRG structure is flexible, at its core is one or two “amphibious ships”. It can be joined with other units (including the 2nd LRG) depending on the requirement.

It is not a “Willy Waving” ARG replacement - in fact “ For much of its existence, the LRG(S) may have to rely on deception and blending in for its safety”

My main point is to understand the requirement. People talk about the T31 being more “fighty”. I have no problem with that but what I do not understand what operations you would be happy to do with say a LSD+T31, that you would not be willing to do with a LSD+B2 or even just a MRSS with CAMM and a 57mm?

Lastly, I accept we now have the T31, but my strong view is to fit it out properly and put it to work in the CBG freeing up the more capable T26s.

[JohnM]

It’s very simple… while the B2s can perform the same constabulary and show-the-flag missions in peacetime, they cannot be up-armed into a proper “fighty” frigate if things heat up… a properly FFBNW T31 can, very rapidly in fact, like I pointed out. As to the all the unmanned kit, it’s coming in force and T31 can take a lot more of it than a B2

You are right, with significant investment and training you could be able to fly weapon containers / PODS the other side of the world and upgrade a FFBNW frigate. However, my point is it’s not cheap - you will need to have said PODS lying around ready to go along with spare personnel - that takes money.

But you seem to be missing my question. I have no problem with recognising a T31 is more fighty than a B2 - but I do not understand what you are trying to achieve? Fight whom? At best, you will have a ship capable enough of annoying someone which will then be quickly sunk. My view is if you a looking for a fight and want to poke a bear or dragon, best go armed and with friends.

As I said above, in case things get heated, whether it's with the Chinese, the Russians or someone else, there will still be a requirement for second tier escorts to do convoy/merchant shipping escort and choke point control... you can get a quickly uparmed T31 to do that, but not a B2... a B2, even with a containerized CAPTAS 1 for example, has no means of persecuting an underwater contact, no way of shooting down a plane and no way of shooting at an opposition's ship... a T31 can do all three and have a very decent chance of coming out on top in 1-on-1 situations with any Chinese or Russian corvette/frigate. My point is that in a shooting war, there are a lot of non-frontline situations for which you need a second tier "fighty" ship and the B2 is not it, while the T31 can be turned into one very quickly and for no cost (see below)...

As to the PODS/unmanned cost, it will happen anyway (it's already happening with the MCM capability), regardless of which ship it's installed in, so your question about cost is a non-issue... and T31 can take a lot more ISO containers and unmanned vehicles than a B2...

[Repulse]

Seems to be two schools of thought:

Pessimists that think the T31 sucks because of what it will be at service entry and ...

... optimists that think the Type 31 is wonderful because of what it may become.

I’m in a third “Confused” bucket - I still don’t understand what requirement it is trying to fulfil in its current configuration, and if the value in this role is sufficient to justify the cost and whether it could be better deployed as part of a wider strategy.

[JohnM]

Seems to be two schools of thought:

Pessimists that think the T31 sucks because of what it will be at service entry and ...

... optimists that think the Type 31 is wonderful because of what it may become.

I’m in a third “Confused” bucket - I still don’t understand what requirement it is trying to fulfil in its current configuration, and if the value in this role is sufficient to justify the cost and whether it could be better deployed as part of a wider strategy.

Seems to be two schools of thought:

Pessimists that think the T31 sucks because of what it will be at service entry and ...

... optimists that think the Type 31 is wonderful because of what it may become.

I’m in a third “Confused” bucket - I still don’t understand what requirement it is trying to fulfil in its current configuration, and if the value in this role is sufficient to justify the cost and whether it could be better deployed as part of a wider strategy.

That is a fair point... I believe (and this is me totally speculating) the RN would rather have their 13 T26s (8 SW + 5 GP), but having been stuck with T31 they decided to make the best of it and get the biggest ship they could get for their buck and hope they could upgrade it later to fulfill the original role of the T26 GP. The beauty of the T31 design is that it's a large and adaptable, so it can be whatever the RN eventually decides it wants it to be....

[Repulse]

JohnM, sorry but you are making some bold and wild statements there.

I get there will be MCM PODS, but that is not “fighty”, what you are asking for are containerised SSMs and SAMs, none of which are planned nor funded. What will you cancel to pay for these? Plus once you’ve added on the cost, how far will you be from a T26?

Just assuming they are - I would still want to go toe to toe against a peer nation in one. I suggest you look at the weapons and numbers of Chinese / Russian Corvettes and Frigates.

I also get the convoy escorts / choke point view, but I think you are trying to fight the last war. Most of these ships you are trying to protect come from China and are registered by other countries. Also, with the exception of Gibraltar and possibly the Gulf, the RN isn’t best placed to protect them anyway.

[JohnM]

JohnM, sorry but you are making some bold and wild statements there.

I get there will be MCM PODS, but that is not “fighty”, what you are asking for are containerised SSMs and SAMs, none of which are planned nor funded. What will you cancel to pay for these? Plus once you’ve added on the cost, how far will you be from a T26?

Just assuming they are - I would still want to go toe to toe against a peer nation in one. I suggest you look at the weapons and numbers of Chinese / Russian Corvettes and Frigates.

I also get the convoy escorts / choke point view, but I think you are trying to fight the last war. Most of these ships you are trying to protect come from China and are registered by other countries. Also, with the exception of Gibraltar and possibly the Gulf, the RN isn’t best placed to protect them anyway.

Again, fair points, but I'm not asking for containerized SAMs and SSMs, far from it... sensors, now that's another story... containerized and offboard ASW and MCM USVs and UUVs are a reality and being fully brought online by the RN as we type...

As to an upgraded T31 vs a Type 054 Chinese frigate, my money would actually be on the T31, but in any case it would be a competition, whereas vs a B2 it would be a massacre...

Your point on fighting the last war, again it's a fair point, but I don't think so, because you'll still need to control who passes through where, on their way to wherever we don't want them to go... and this is just an example...

[Repulse]

whereas vs a B2 it would be a massacre

Completely agree, and I would never try. The point is that I believe the B2 ticks the forward engagement/constabulary role at the right cost, leaving money to build properly equipped warships (not FFBNW) that can be part of the fighting force. There isn’t a middle ground - ships can either fight or need to be protected.

[JohnM]

whereas vs a B2 it would be a massacre

Completely agree, and I would never try. The point is that I believe the B2 ticks the forward engagement/constabulary role at the right cost, leaving money to build properly equipped warships (not FFBNW) that can be part of the fighting force. There isn’t a middle ground - ships can either fight or need to be protected.

In a vacuum you're right of course, but the fact is that the RN has been dealt a certain, less than ideal hand with both T31 and the R2s and it's trying to do the best it can... I, for one, think they're doing a good job of it, especially with new strategy of permament forward deployment of ships... and we can always agree to disagree...

[Repulse]

JohnM, agree the RN is doing a good job in a difficult circumstance. I just hope the government realises soon that the world has moved away from the “peaceful” years earlier in this century to a situation where the threat level is extreme and real war fighting capabilities are required.

[JohnM]

JohnM, agree the RN is doing a good job in a difficult circumstance. I just hope the government realises soon that the world has moved away from the “peaceful” years earlier in this century to a situation where the threat level is extreme and real war fighting capabilities are required.

Agree 100%

[Tempest414]

Well the RN are showing no signs of this in there actions as the LRG has been fixed over the past few years with

2018 - 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD's ,1 x T-45 , 1 x Point class , 2 x MCM deployed off Oman
2019 - 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD , Argus , 1 x T-23 , 1 x Point class deployed Baltic
2020 - 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD , 1 x T-45 deployed Med
2021 - 1 x LPD , 2 x LSD , 1 x T-23 deployed LRG North
2021 - 1 x Carrier ( in LHA ) , 1 x LPD , 1 x LSD , 3 x Escorts deployed Joint Warrior 21/02

What you’ve described it a poorly equipped armada.

So 1 x LHA capable of carrying 10 f-35 and 10 helicopters , 1 x LSD , 1 x Wave class and 3 escorts is not that far out at all

I suggest you read: https://www.navylookout.com/understandi ... p-concept/



The principal is that the LRG structure is flexible, at its core is one or two “amphibious ships”. It can be joined with other units (including the 2nd LRG) depending on the requirement.

It is not a “Willy Waving” ARG replacement - in fact “ For much of its existence, the LRG(S) may have to rely on deception and blending in for its safety”

My main point is to understand the requirement. People talk about the T31 being more “fighty”. I have no problem with that but what I do not understand what operations you would be happy to do with say a LSD+T31, that you would not be willing to do with a LSD+B2 or even just a MRSS with CAMM and a 57mm?

Lastly, I accept we now have the T31, but my strong view is to fit it out properly and put it to work in the CBG freeing up the more capable T26s.

This all started in the context of you wanting a third carrier group and when you look at what I have put down and the navies own flow chart all I am saying is if we replaced the LPD with a LHA giving the RN a 3rd flat top . it is also looking like we could end up with 4 escorts EoS in the Future 1 in the Gulf 2 in the Indo -Pac and 1 with the LRG/S . So using the flow chart LRG-S has 1 LSD and 1 escort it needs a bit more so we send a LHA with some F-35 and Helicopters and another escort and if more is needed you send a CSG

[Repulse]

Tempest414, understand, but we need to separate a CBG from the amphibious discussion. A CBG/CSG can escort a LRG or amphibious logistics group (transportating an Army brigade). However, the core of a CBG cannot be a LHA - it should either be primarily a strike carrier or alternatively a ASW carrier IMO.

[Poiuytrewq]

As the whole world is looking for "good naming" of "typical corvette-level armed multi-purpose global patrol vessels", thinking about its naming is not that pointless, I think.

Completely agree, time for RN to be the trend setter and come up with a new classification

……answers on a postcard.

into a proper “fighty” frigate if things heat up… a properly FFBNW T31 can, very rapidly in fact…..

I am obviously not a fan of the T31 as a replacement for the T23 GP’s but if the true T23 GP replacements are in fact the T32’s then the T31’s are really just OPV replacements which in itself has a solid rationale and an acceptable cost. Not everyone agrees and that’s fine.

Your point about the upgradability of the RB2’s in times of conflict is well made. They are virtually worthless once the shooting starts. Conversely, the T31’s would have a significant role to play even without modifications or PODS, mainly due to the spacious hanger that is capable of embarking TWO Wildcats. This is an important consideration that should not be overlooked.

A modest group of two or three T31’s embarking up to six Wildcats would be a formidable ASuW force if subsurface threats were negligible. Add in two T23’s/T26’s, one T45, three HM2’s and an SSN and it becomes a potent force that few navies could begin to contend with.

What value could regular formations of surface hunting T31’s have in the Indio-Pacific over the next 10 years, especially if other allied nations provided the ASW screen?

The potential of the T31 outside of constabulary roles is clear but a chronic lack of helicopters and SSN’s really hamper RN’s ability to form genuinely potent and highly available T31 surface hunting groups that would provide real strategic value at a very modest cost.

[dmereifield]

In all these discussions regarding armaments and such, are we not missing the point that the T31 will be built to recognised warship survivability standards, whereas the RB2 are built to commercial standards

[donald_of_tokyo]

In all these discussions regarding armaments and such, are we not missing the point that the T31 will be built to recognised warship survivability standards, whereas the RB2 are built to commercial standards

Agree very important point.

But, I understand RB2 is built to OPV standard, not commercial standard. At least, higher standard than that of Irish S Becket class.

Note, most of the export corvettes are built to OPV standard, as well. At least, Mexican Sigma 10514 corvette is. Of course, we do not know if it is the same one applied to RB2. No such good information.

[Repulse]

T31 will be built to recognised warship survivability standards, whereas the RB2 are built to commercial standards

The point is if an OPV/Sloop is the right ship for the job, and a light Frigate does not meet a valid and priority requirement to justify the additional cost, then why use a frigate?

I have no problem with more Frigates, I don’t even care greatly about the T31 as long as it is kitted our t properly. We just need to be maximising our budgets to get the maximum based on real Strategic priorities.

[tomuk]

T31 will be built to recognised warship survivability standards, whereas the RB2 are built to commercial standards

The point is if an OPV/Sloop is the right ship for the job, and a light Frigate does not meet a valid and priority requirement to justify the additional cost, then why use a frigate?

I have no problem with more Frigates, I don’t even care greatly about the T31 as long as it is kitted our t properly. We just need to be maximising our budgets to get the maximum based on real Strategic priorities.

But you are confused in your thinking. The RB2 haven't replaced the OPVs they are standing in for T23GPs as they go through refit. The T23GPs will be replaced by T31

[Tempest414]

Tempest414, understand, but we need to separate a CBG from the amphibious discussion. A CBG/CSG can escort a LRG or amphibious logistics group (transportating an Army brigade). However, the core of a CBG cannot be a LHA - it should either be primarily a strike carrier or alternatively a ASW carrier IMO.

We also need to separate CBG from CSG for me a CSG is what we see now i.e a Carrier + escorts + RFA support. And a LRG is a Littoral Response group and two LRG's make a Littoral strike group so for me a CSG plus a LSG make a CBG

Also LHA's can operate as a , ASW carrier or a light escort carrier (as the US LHA/LHD's are proving )

So with the above said and the so called tilt to the Indo Pacific for me if we get the 5 T-32's I would like to see 3 type 31's and 2 type 32's deployed EoS plus a Bay class plus a Wave class all of these ships can operate solo or ships can come together to form groups. As said I would replace the LPD with a LHA to allow a 3rd flat top this could in turn allow in peace time for there to be a flat top in the Indo -Pacific each year so we could see

year 1 ) the ships deployed full time EoS operating solo plus a CSG
year 2 ) some of the ships deployed full time EoS plus a LHA coming together to form a LRG +