Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4252
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 19 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Yes, XLUUV has a large diversity of outcome.

If someone wants to make it SSK equivalent, it will surely cost much MORE than an SSK. Very logical. Unmanned system is inherently expensive than manned system. "Longer endurance" is the only gain from being unmanned. So, a UUV as large as 40-50m is not an affordable option.

Small XLUUV (10-20 m) has smaller and less capable sensor, less capable analysis power and thus not good at "finding" something.

Bythe way, ARCIMS-like small-USV based ASW differs a lot. It provides "one of the sensing and pinging nodes" among the multi-static ASW tactics. The high-end analysis can be done in the control room, so the front-end analysis can be simpler. But it needs data link, and therefore the locations are known to enemy. And thus, this multi-static ASW concept cannot be applied to XLUUV.

So it is not ASW.

But, laying mines, monitoring "busy area" and bring back some information (or sending a fast alert in emergency, risking the location being detected), destoying enemy underwater sonar in wartime, can take place for XLUUV?

But, in general, what to do with XLUUV is not an easy business.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 17 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 08 Jan 2022, 21:01 Why should the escorts be on a rule of 3 if the carrier, it’s air wing and the support vessels are not?
It's a good challenge, and one we've had before but from what I've read the rule of 3 is where we've ended up.

The fact seems to be even with four RN escorts there would still probably be a requirement for 2 additional ones from allies.

I would say a pool of 12 makes sense because:
- It gives it level of robustness to cope with losses either in action or due to mechanical failure / accidents.
- It would allow both CSGs to be surged at a reasonable level of notice.
- It gives an option to up the number of RN escorts if allied escorts aren't available or if the CSG is escorting other HVUs such as Army transports.
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6393
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 36 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

If the balloon goes up the available CSG will be the priority for the available escorts over all other tasks. This could well mean that a number of escorts are kept in port whenever both carriers are along side, reserved for when one of the latter sails. The Navy may aspire to operating both carriers at the same time, and can possibly do so in peace time, but not in wartime without substantial help from our allies, and even them its Air Group will be very ad hoc with possibly one squadron of FAA/RAF F-35s along with FAA Merlins and Wildcats. The USMC may be able to provide additional F-35s but we should also develop a closer relationship with the Italian Navy and Air Force with their F-25Bs cross decking to one of our Carriers possibly.

SO in a nutshell the generation of a single viable CSG must be the Nay's second most important task after CASD and it should develop its plans accordingly.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
serge750

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Sounds like the same reasoning we used to hear for years on why you can’t double crew frigates resisted with excuses like crews won’t look after ships ect despite ssbns doing it since the beginning. Now the former 1st sea lord says Montrose is the most available escort in the fleet.

It’s hard to “surge” 2 carriers when you have only 1 air wing and 1 solid stores ship.

There isnt any robustness in any other areas of defence its all at minimums probably even less than with personal shortages.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 17 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 10:04 It’s hard to “surge” 2 carriers when you have only 1 air wing and 1 solid stores ship.

There isnt any robustness in any other areas of defence its all at minimums probably even less than with personal shortages.
I can't argue with that logic based on the current picture, however the direction of travel is clear in that there are planned 3 FSSs and multiple F35B air wings (with 70-80 a/c). We need to work on this basis as we look at the future fleet.
”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

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3169
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 10 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 10:04 Sounds like the same reasoning we used to hear for years on why you can’t double crew frigates resisted with excuses like crews won’t look after ships ect despite ssbns doing it since the beginning. Now the former 1st sea lord says Montrose is the most available escort in the fleet.

It’s hard to “surge” 2 carriers when you have only 1 air wing and 1 solid stores ship.

There isnt any robustness in any other areas of defence its all at minimums probably even less than with personal shortages.
The first point is we have the two carriers and they are manned allowing both to put to sea if needed. With only one SSS and half a air-wing at this time we need help as I have said before the carrier groups need to do every thing together when a carrier is at sea the hole group is at sea when a carrier is under going maintenance the hole group is doing the same. At this time we can only deploy 1 carrier group this being said if the shit hit the fan I am sure NATO could build a carrier group around the second carrier and this is important and should be trained for this in its self would be a show of force by NATO

also the rule of 3 has been out the window for sometime now for many years we have deployed 3 type 45 a year with the other 3 in maintenance or laid up i.e 50/50

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 10:47
SW1 wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 10:04 It’s hard to “surge” 2 carriers when you have only 1 air wing and 1 solid stores ship.

There isnt any robustness in any other areas of defence its all at minimums probably even less than with personal shortages.
I can't argue with that logic based on the current picture, however the direction of travel is clear in that there are planned 3 FSSs and multiple F35B air wings (with 70-80 a/c). We need to work on this basis as we look at the future fleet.
And the Merlin part of the multiple air wings comes from where?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 17 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 10:52 And the Merlin part of the multiple air wings comes from where?
Depends which role you are talk about, for example a plans for a replacement AEW system have already been announced.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 17 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 10:48 the rule of 3 has been out the window for sometime now for many years we have deployed 3 type 45 a year with the other 3 in maintenance or laid up i.e 50/50
It’s not deployed in a year though is it, it’s the number deployed on active service at the same time throughout the year. I’d also argue that the escort fleet is being run on a high (and unstainable) tempo currently. Somethings, like forward basing can push the dial but we are far from being able to deliver a 2:1 ratio consistently in both peace and war.
”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

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3169
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 10 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 08 Jan 2022, 14:00 On ASW point of view, these XLUUV and ASW-USVs (like ARCIMS-ASW "SEASENSE"), coupled with recovery-gear like PALFINGER will make a good comparison.

XLUUV:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-n ... submarine/

ARCIMS ASW "SEASENSE"


recovery gear "PALFINGER"
So looking at the second video of the Palfinger system if type 32 was a type 31 with this system under the flight deck meaning it could carry 2 x 11m USV's in the stern and 4 x 9.5m ribs in the boat bays it would be a good ship

Also do we know if that babcock ship in the video is in the offing looking at its basics it could carry 2 x 11m USV's from the stern 2 x ribs from boat bays a Wildcat in a hangar plus be armed with a 57mm up front and 40mm on the hangar roof making a nice ship

which brings back to if there was 2 billion for type 32 should we go for 3 x type 31 with the stern system and 4 of this other new ship

or was this the first glimpse of Babcock's type 32

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3169
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 10 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 11:03
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 10:48 the rule of 3 has been out the window for sometime now for many years we have deployed 3 type 45 a year with the other 3 in maintenance or laid up i.e 50/50
It’s not deployed in a year though is it, it’s the number deployed on active service at the same time throughout the year. I’d also argue that the escort fleet is being run on a high (and unstainable) tempo currently. Somethings, like forward basing can push the dial but we are far from being able to deliver a 2:1 ratio consistently in both peace and war.
The point is we have had 3 type 45's fit for deployment and the other 3 in deep maintenance or laid up in a given year meaning 50% of the fleet can go to sea as seen fit like this year when 2 were deployed with the CSG and one was deployed on local operation like missile tests and joint warrior

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6393
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 36 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

As with so may things within the MoD we lack the capacity to utilise our capabilities effectively. The Def Sec has been going on about increasing the days at sea each warship will undertake as a means of dealing with the increased commitments the RN has whilst not having the ships necessary under normal usage rates. This is another short term fis that will come home to bite the RN in the arse as its ships are worked far harder than planning assumption thought they would, requiring long and more expensive maintenance when in port, which in turn will reduce the funding available for other programmes as well as reducing the service life of said warships and so on. What I really have issue with is that our warships are stretched too thin in peace time how will the RN manage in a conflict where the opposition could actually sink one or more of our ships God forbid! In naval warfare, more than land or air, you fight with what you have with little possibility of replacement assets. We do have a spare Carrier but I doubt we would have the air wing for it. The F-35 Squadrons we will have will only be enough to maintain a single Carrier Wing as well as training, maintenance and attrition reserve. The RAF will also want a number available for its use until TEMPEST begins to arrive, as until there is a policy change, they have a need for the aircraft as well.

I will go as far as to say that the MoD and all three services have the decade they are saying they need to restructure themselves and receive the necessary planes, ships and tank. If the needed assets are not in place after this gap or if there are any further reduction in conventional capabilities, the Armed Services will have dropped below their critical mass and will no longer be a viable fighting force.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
whitelancerScimitar54

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 17 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 11:25 The point is we have had 3 type 45's fit for deployment and the other 3 in deep maintenance or laid up in a given year meaning 50% of the fleet can go to sea as seen fit like this year when 2 were deployed with the CSG and one was deployed on local operation like missile tests and joint warrior
What about training and redundancy? The point of the rule of three is that for every ship deployed there is another in training / working up, and another in maintenance or on trails. You could argue that with newer kit, more efficient maintenance processes, crew rotation and increased use of simulators you could get close to "1 deployed : 2.5 total", but given this is a critical warfighting capability, the need at times to escort other HVUs and requirements to regularly perform significant weapon and system upgrades I for one would not feel comfortable to move away from the 1:3 ratio.
”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

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1272
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 17 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

The T45s are as good an example as any, as to why you need the 3 to 1 rule to apply.

Following the problems with power generation and even with the work around partial solution, full availability has not been seen for many years. Hopefully the PIP will solve these problems, but it will not be until towards the end of the decade that all six will have received the upgrade.

Secondly the up-arming of the same six vessels is not scheduled to be complete until 2032/3 and the timescales are not short for this upgrade.

On top of this is normal routine maintenance.


Two are required for a CSG escort. So six are needed to provide those two. However, we have two carriers, so potentially need another two active at 30 days notice as well.

The problems with HMS Diamond on CSG21 also show the folly of insufficient numbers.

SW1 asks about the comparison with only two Carriers ? ……….. He is correct to a point, but perhaps not in the way he would have wished. Having only the two Carriers is a strategic mistake, which hopefully will not catch us out. A mistake it is though, none the less.

Politicians liked the “Peace Dividend”. It made things easy for them! However as I have consistently said ever since the Peace Dividend defence cuts were first mooted. The world was becoming a MORE dangerous place, not a LESS dangerous one.

Now our Politicians have to face up to the fact that they have “egg on their faces” and must put right the defence (and related) wrongs of the last 30+ years. Hopefully our defence “professionals” will be successful in convincing them of this. :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post (total 4):
Repulseserge750wargame_insomniacJensy

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3169
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 10 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

This is all very good but changes nothing not a thing we need the type 45's capable of deploying with the carriers i.e we 2 dedicated to QE and 2 dedicated to POW at any one time the other two will be in deep maintenance or upgrade and for this to work it means when the carrier is at sea its escorts are at sea and when the carrier is under maintenance its escorts are under maintenance and the carriers escorts can not and should not be used for anything else as the deployment of the carriers is key.

Now if we can only generate 3 type 45's at this time we should dedicate two to QE and one POW and be asking the Danish navy to dedicate a IH class or the US a AB class . But the rule of 3 dose not and can not work with type 45 for the rule of 3 to work we would need 12 type 45's as we need to generate 4 at anytime

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 17 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 09:55 Now if we can only generate 3 type 45's at this time we should dedicate two to QE and one POW and be asking the Danish navy to dedicate a IH class or the US a AB class . But the rule of 3 dose not and can not work with type 45 for the rule of 3 to work we would need 12 type 45's as we need to generate 4 at anytime
Having both QE & PoW on active deployment (not training) will be an extreme circumstance, where you will be forgoing training and other supporting tasks for a (short) period of time. It's tight but allocating four of the six T45s would be possible. Again, as mentioned elsewhere we should have three CVFs to ensure one is always available, but for obvious budgeting reasons that is not possible.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
JensyLord Jim
”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

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3169
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 10 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 11:10
Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 09:55 Now if we can only generate 3 type 45's at this time we should dedicate two to QE and one POW and be asking the Danish navy to dedicate a IH class or the US a AB class . But the rule of 3 dose not and can not work with type 45 for the rule of 3 to work we would need 12 type 45's as we need to generate 4 at anytime
Having both QE & PoW on active deployment (not training) will be an extreme circumstance, where you will be forgoing training and other supporting tasks for a (short) period of time. It's tight but allocating four of the six T45s would be possible. Again, as mentioned elsewhere we should have three CVFs to ensure one is always available, but for obvious budgeting reasons that is not possible.
No one carrier group will be deployed active the other will be under maintenance , training or at 30 days notice but this dose not change the fact that what ever a carrier is doing its escorts should be doing the same

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1272
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 17 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Where is the Area Air Defence for the LRGs and Troop Transports supposed to come from? Oh, I know! Of course, it will be plucked out of the sky! We NEED more than Six T45s. Not ordering hulls 7 & 8 as the irreducible minimum, was another act of sheer folly. :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post (total 3):
serge750wargame_insomniacJensy

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 17 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Scimitar54 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 15:20 Where is the Area Air Defence for the LRGs and Troop Transports supposed to come from? Oh, I know! Of course, it will be plucked out of the sky! We NEED more than Six T45s. Not ordering hulls 7 & 8 as the irreducible minimum, was another act of sheer folly. :mrgreen:
Agree, but history is history, I just hope for 8+ T83s… until then anything sailing with a significant air threat will need to be escorted by a CSG.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Why would you be committing a Littoral response group on its own to a threat requiring area air defence?

It merges with the carrier group for higher end operations or so the literature says..

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 17 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 19:49 Why would you be committing a Littoral response group on its own to a threat requiring area air defence?

It merges with the carrier group for higher end operations or so the literature says..
It does, but it’s not an optimal solution, the same as a CVF is not a good LPH, you want the CSG to be independent and able to stay away from the Littoral zone.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 20:58
SW1 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 19:49 Why would you be committing a Littoral response group on its own to a threat requiring area air defence?

It merges with the carrier group for higher end operations or so the literature says..
It does, but it’s not an optimal solution, the same as a CVF is not a good LPH, you want the CSG to be independent and able to stay away from the Littoral zone.
Shouldn’t of build cvf then…

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1849
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 21:00
Repulse wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 20:58
SW1 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 19:49 Why would you be committing a Littoral response group on its own to a threat requiring area air defence?

It merges with the carrier group for higher end operations or so the literature says..
It does, but it’s not an optimal solution, the same as a CVF is not a good LPH, you want the CSG to be independent and able to stay away from the Littoral zone.
Shouldn’t of build cvf then…
Shouldn’t of repeatedly cut the defence budget after commuting to building CVFs, from around 3% of gdp when first starting the project to less than 2% by the same metric now.
These users liked the author Jake1992 for the post:
serge750

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 22:09
SW1 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 21:00
Repulse wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 20:58
SW1 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 19:49 Why would you be committing a Littoral response group on its own to a threat requiring area air defence?

It merges with the carrier group for higher end operations or so the literature says..
It does, but it’s not an optimal solution, the same as a CVF is not a good LPH, you want the CSG to be independent and able to stay away from the Littoral zone.
Shouldn’t of build cvf then…
Shouldn’t of repeatedly cut the defence budget after commuting to building CVFs, from around 3% of gdp when first starting the project to less than 2% by the same metric now.
Committed to build 2 40K tonne vessels for 2.75b pounds with an inservice date of 2012 ooops.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1849
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 22:25
Jake1992 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 22:09
SW1 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 21:00
Repulse wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 20:58
SW1 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 19:49 Why would you be committing a Littoral response group on its own to a threat requiring area air defence?

It merges with the carrier group for higher end operations or so the literature says..
It does, but it’s not an optimal solution, the same as a CVF is not a good LPH, you want the CSG to be independent and able to stay away from the Littoral zone.
Shouldn’t of build cvf then…
Shouldn’t of repeatedly cut the defence budget after commuting to building CVFs, from around 3% of gdp when first starting the project to less than 2% by the same metric now.
Committed to build 2 40K tonne vessels for 2.75b pounds with an inservice date of 2012 ooops.
The budget could afford 2 70k carriers and all that’s included at the time of commitment they then repeatedly cut the defence budget and added over £1bn to the cost buy artificial slow build and flip flopping on CATs
These users liked the author Jake1992 for the post (total 3):
Repulseserge750wargame_insomniac

Post Reply