Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Another idea will be to simply accept slower speed of Absalon class. Just
1: "refresh" its internal design to meet the modern RN standard,
2: replace 127mm gun with 57 mm (A-pos), locate 12-CAMM VLS on b-pos,
3: locate another 57 mm gun on the hangar
4: use the waist for mission deck
5: also re-arrange the vehicle deck for mission bays

Simple? Slow speed may be some weak-point, but anyway she can escort the logistic fleet and/or LRG (amphibious TF).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

It is all well and good suggesting various configurations that might be found in the future T-32, but until we have a clear understanding of the capabilities the T-32 is required to have, most suggestions are baseless. We have been told at other times that the T-32 is to be basically a mothership for unmanned naval craft, We have also been told that the T-32 could be simply an increased capability version fo the T-31. WE have also had suggestions that there could be close links between the T-32 and the planned MRSS that will form the core of the Royal Navy's two planed LRGs.

Each of the above require a design that is biased towards the core capability requirements, turning the vessel into a relatively specialised ship, the more capable T-32 train of thought is obviously an exception. Does the Royal Navy want to increase its escort fleet size beyond nineteen vessels or not. Instead, is it looking to develop a totally new class of warship wielded to the large-scale use of unmanned platforms. Is the T-32 an attempt to correct the lack of capabilities the current design for the T-31 suffers from.

My personal opinions are that any Mothership to manage the large scale usage of unmanned naval craft needs to be significantly large that an escort sized vessel. This does not mean escorts cannot operate unmanned platforms but those they do will be a lot smaller with less range and more focused mission types. The Navy is planning for up to four MRSS which will form the core of its two planned LRGs. The escorts assigned to this formation needs to be accompanied by one or more escorts, not trying to be support vessels of pseudo MRSS vessels themselves. THe current T-31 design will be barely able to carry out its role as an escort against anything but the most basic of threats such as armed speed boats manned by fanatical crew in restricted waters.

What I believe we need the T-32 to be capable of are a multitude of tasks to a certain level, basically being a General-purpose Warship able to carry out ASW, AAW and ASuW duties to a level that would enable them to be both part of a high-end formation such as the Carrier Group or operate at a lower level such as being part of a LRG. In fact one could argue that in the current finanical situation the MoD and Government exist, having the Royal Navy operate high specialised vessels that are aimed at a single role has become untenable with the current size of the Fleet. Other may argue the exact opposite, so having a class of true general purpose escorts may be the way to go with the T-32, and if it is based on the T-31 there could be the possibility of the previous class being brought up the same capability level as its siling during the planned maintenance periods of the class, eventually giving us up to ten capable general purpose escorts that complement the highly capable but specialised T-26 and T-45/83.

As fir the management of unmanned platforms, maybe a derivative of any design accepted for the MRSS could be a good candidate?

Whatever happens, until a clear list of the role and capability needs for the T-32, all our suggestions are nothing more than that. Hopefully we will get some answers sooner rather than later.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 4):
jedibeeftrixAnthony58wargame_insomniacJensy

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 07:43 It is all well and good suggesting various configurations that might be found in the future T-32, but until we have a clear understanding of the capabilities the T-32 is required to have, most suggestions are baseless.
Agree. BAE's proposal is the most "recent" information we have.

But, even though it is just "how BAES understands T32 will be", or "one of the proposals for T32", it is worth noting.

The concept was clearly showing that
1: not aiming at full-fat escort, just with a 57 mm gun and 12-24 CAMM, and other weapons in Pods
2: not aiming at delivering many USVs (only two 12-m and two 7.5-m class boat alcoves)
3: but with about 10 of containers (Pods)
4: Chinook capable flight-deck
5: and a "smallish" vehicle deck

Related to item-1, I think, if any more "full-fat" frigate be needed, it shall be "a few more T26", not a T32.

On the other hand, T31 lacks flexibility to add Pods and boats, much less than even T26. For me, it is a kind of a specialist patrol frigate just with a large hull. If we want "a bit more up-armed T30s", I think up-arming T31 itself is the right way to go. It is easy. Again, as UK has a full-fat frigate on build = T26, up-armed T31 do not need to be heavily armed. But, say,
- increase the CAMM load to 24 or 36
- carry 8 or 16 canistered NSM and a CAPTAS-4CI sonar OR a hull-sonar and 16-cell Mk.41 VLS for FC/ASW
will be the most I shall hope for T31-mod.

"Cheaper to operate", "leaner manned", and "never a specialist ASW escort (T26) nor AAW escort (T45)" are the reason-detre of T31, for me. :D
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
serge750Jensy

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 11:37
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 07:43 It is all well and good suggesting various configurations that might be found in the future T-32, but until we have a clear understanding of the capabilities the T-32 is required to have, most suggestions are baseless.
Agree. BAE's proposal is the most "recent" information we have.

But, even though it is just "how BAES understands T32 will be", or "one of the proposals for T32", it is worth noting.
But Donald the BAE proposals are just BAE touting for business it was clear from listening to Sir Simon BAE Naval CEO at the Scottish affairs cmtte that BAE are hungry for some Naval design work. At one point he even suggested that BAE could design T32 and Babcock could build it due to no capacity at Govan. I may of imagined it but that seemed to raise an eyebrow of John Howie of Babcock.

As per my previous post I believe that the Navy needs a larger number of escorts and these can be provided quickly and cheaply by a properly equipped 2nd line GP frigate based on T31 i.e. T32

Any specific mother shipping or amphibious hosting should be provided for by appropriate specialised vessels eg Belgian-Dutch minehunter (rMCM), MRSS etc.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 4):
Scimitar54wargame_insomniacSD67Lord Jim

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

If retaining warship design skills is a critical sovereign capability, then it makes zero sense having separate BAE and Babcock teams.
”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

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 20:56 If retaining warship design skills is a critical sovereign capability, then it makes zero sense having separate BAE and Babcock teams.
For design or construction? If the former then I could agree wholeheartedly - lets's get the best ideas from both of them. If the latter then would disagree as need the competition to kep them both focussed.

I do think there is a natural division of upcoming work, especially if the new future destroyer design started off wth a T26 hull and just changes the empahsis from ASW to AAW. And also if the T32 ends up being (finally) specced up in a way that making it a derivation / continuation of T31 would make economic sense and maximise knoledge gains from work on T31.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Going back to the committee meeting even when T83 was mentioned in a question Sir Simon didn't acknowledge it. With the leisurely life the T45s have had T83 is so far over the horizon it is irrelevant, BAE need some ship design work now.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 23:01 For design or construction?
Design - the argument for short construction runs for classes has been to keep design skills, the UK cannot afford to spread what limited work it has across multiple teams.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I know that there are multiple stages of design from PowerPoint to detailed construction plans, all of which help retain skills and develop ideas, but from a design perspective what is the required drumbeat for a design team? A new warship class every decade for example?
”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

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Babcock’s design teams don’t just work for the RN, and BAE also needs to design SSN(R) including variations required for Australia, such as integration of US kit.

If Team UK win the FSS contract there will be design work there as well. I think keeping the CAD engineers busy is far from the biggest challenge. I’d be worried about getting something approaching efficiency out of this ridiculous two yard build of type 26 plus finding the next generation of welders and ‘leccies to replace all the 55 year olds who are starting to think about retirement

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

tomuk wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 23:39 Going back to the committee meeting even when T83 was mentioned in a question Sir Simon didn't acknowledge it. With the leisurely life the T45s have had T83 is so far over the horizon it is irrelevant, BAE need some ship design work now.
This in many ways this is the problem with BAE they sit around waiting for RN work they could be be proactive and design a new 50 meter patrol boat or a flattop LPD for MRSS or a Corvette for the export market but no they sit and wait. If we take Type 26 as the perfect point BAE knew that T-26 numbers would be cut and should have had a design in the pipeline but know they sat and waited

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Babcock and type 31 have surprised bae, they are now attempting to drive out the competition.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Tempest414

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

The way to kill the competition would be to produce a 800£ million type 26, it will be interesting to see the new contract Sir Simon Lister has negotiated with his former colleagues. Cynical me thinks it will be the same cost as today with lots of blather about extraordinary cost pressures massive investment in training new apprentices blah blah blah
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 2):
Repulseserge750

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

In real terms the next 5 T-26's need to come in for 4.3 billion or type 26 tips over the 1 billion per ship if this happens then Babcocks could push a 500 million pound ship we know at this time type 31 is set to come in at 400 million per ship = 2 billion for the 5 ships

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

If the government had bought 13 T26s upfront then BAE could have easily hit the £800mn per vessel price tag. Instead the money get wasted on uncertainties and the lack of investment it causes and spreading design and other fixed costs over too few hulls.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 3):
serge750Scimitar54Jensy
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 17 Sep 2022, 16:33 If the government had bought 13 T26s upfront then BAE could have easily hit the £800mn per vessel price tag. Instead the money get wasted on uncertainties and the lack of investment it causes and spreading design and other fixed costs over too few hulls.
Where has that come from we know that the projected cost was 11.5 billion for 13 ships at 800m it would have cost 10.4 had we lock in the 11.5 billion it would have been closer to 900 million per ship

As things stand today we are set to spend 10 billion on 8 T-26 and 5 T-31 however if we take the River B2's in as well as they were built as a stop gap for the type 26 program the cost to the tax payer is 10.66 billion for 18 ships

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

But the rivers were ridiculously overpriced due to TOBA the government was required to sustain a level of business in the yard.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

I think time and time and time again the folly of delay causing increased costs plays out in government contracts.

Astute is an obvious example (list skills being a major driver) HS2 is another (inflation) and now T26.

The lesson is always - get on and deliver.
These users liked the author Dobbo for the post (total 6):
serge750CaribbeanRepulsewargame_insomniacScimitar54Lord Jim

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

tomuk wrote: 17 Sep 2022, 18:25 But the rivers were ridiculously overpriced due to TOBA the government was required to sustain a level of business in the yard.
TOBA or not the cost was the cost I do agree that the B2's were over priced and I do feel we could have got 4 Khareef class corvettes for the same money

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

How can RN "man" the T32s? (comment 1 of 2)

RN now operates = mans only 12 escorts. Each with typically 200 crew, including flight, total of 2400 crew is there.
At least 4 T45 shall be manned : 200 x4 = 800.
Among the 8 T26s, at least 6 shall be manned : Each with 150+20 = 170 : 170 x 6 = 1020.
Among the 5 T31s, at least 4 shall be manned : Each with 105+15 = 120 : 120 x 4 = 480.

2400 - 800 - 1020 - 480 = only 100 remains.

Actually, I think 1 or 2 more T45 or T26 or T31 shall better be manned, but there is simply not enough crew. In other words, even without considering T32, there is not enough crew. The crew needed for a T26 and a T31 is smaller than those for a T23, but in this plan, I am hoping for 14 active escorts (2 more than currently RN provides), out of 19 escorts.

continues ...
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Lord Jim

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

How can RN "man" the T32s? (comment 2 of 2)

As I think the man-power now assigned to 12 active escorts are fully needed to man the already existing/planned escorts (6 T45, 8 T26 and 5 T31), if any T32 to be ordered, we need to find crew. (Increase in man-power? Hopefully. But, RN was struggling for it for decades, and current status is the output. I cannot be optimistic here.)

As T32 introduction "coincidentially" came with retirement announcement of 12 MCMVs, let me count their crew. 6 Hunt class each with 45 crew = 270. 6 Sandown class each with 34 crew = 204. (I know NOT all of them are manned, and some already disbanded. So, it is already an over-estimation). In total, RN has 474 crew from the MCMV fleet.

Among them, a half will go to the MCM USV teams (un-manned system do needs man-power, of course). Remaining is 237 souls. Out of this man-power, RN need to man
- 2 or 3 MCM-USV support ship (is it still there?) = 37 crew.
- for T32, only 200 crew.

If we are happy with 14 escorts out of 19 (T45, T26 and T31), another 100 will come. In total, up to 300.

I think this means T32 shall be lean-manned, which then means T32 must be lightly armed. If one wants T32 to be heavily armed, why not activate another T45/T26/T31 (15th active hulls out of 19)?

Even if with 300 souls, there can only be three "90-crew" T32. If you want 5 T32 to be built, with 4 active, your crew size will be only be ~70, including the air-crew. I think BAES's T32 proposal is already too heavily equipped. Or, number to be built shall be small.

As I agree design work is important for UK industry, smallish and lightly-armed T32 shall be a good option. "Smallish" hull is good for export, especially in this "high fuel cost" world. A 57 mm gun and 12 CAMM is not bad as a heavy corvette/light frigate. It will be like a mini-Absalon, or smaller end of Damen X-over.

Just a thought.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Lord Jim

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

One would hope that the Mod would look towards increasing the personnel pool if they intend to increase both the size of the fleet and its readiness levels. To achieve the latter, we may need more than one crew per ship if quality of life issues are to be handled
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 3):
Scimitar54donald_of_tokyoserge750

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Additional crew availability is (one of) the prerequisites for expanding the RN, in addition to adequate fuel, ordnance and spares stocks, referred to elsewhere. :mrgreen:

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by S M H »

In my humble opinion a lift of 1000 personnel for the navy would be possibility in the nexd decade. This would make the manning of the type 32s as they are commissioned. While the redeployed personnel would allow more ships to be crewed and active. This is feasible with proposed increase of defence spending. That is if it turns out to be true increase rather than smoke and mirrors with the increase used for other budgets that are designated as security.
These users liked the author S M H for the post (total 2):
serge750mrclark303

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Moved across
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 12:14 Including the 6 systems on MHC block 1, it seems reasonable replacement. I'm wondering from where T32 budget may come. Maybe none (= needs fresh increase).
A defence budget of £100bn by 2030!

This is partly due to the firm line set by Truss, who has “been adamant: 2.5 per cent by 2026, 3 per cent by 2030”. “She said from day one, ‘be under no illusion, I mean it’. It’s one of her clear priorities as a Prime Minister that we are going to invest and spend the money.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ing-boost/

“She said from day one, ‘be under no illusion, I mean it,’” Mr Wallace said. “It’s one of her clear priorities as a Prime Minister that we are going to invest and spend the money.” He said the pledge amounted to an annual defence budget of about £100 billion by 2030 - an increase of £52 billion on the current sum.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
dmereifield

Post Reply