Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Given the chatter of the surface fleet vs submarine fleet ratio, and newspaper / retired general movement for more Army funds, I think it’s quite possible that people hoping for a significant increase in the surface fleet will be disappointed. I just hope it’s not the ‘81 review all over again.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 09:15 Given the chatter of the surface fleet vs submarine fleet ratio, and newspaper / retired general movement for more Army funds, I think it’s quite possible that people hoping for a significant increase in the surface fleet will be disappointed. I just hope it’s not the ‘81 review all over again.
Its a massive increase. An extra £25bn per annum within 4 years rising to a £50bn increase by the end of the decade.

Surely an increase in the Army can’t swallow all of that?

IMO all current planning is now obsolete and a completely new fleet balance is genuinely possible if RN deems it necessary.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

There’s a lot of water to flow under the bridge and as things stand buying from the US is relatively expensive. I hope the rise isn’t taken up by inflation / currency fluctuation and is used to develop a genuinely globally competitive arms industry. The social benefit here (eg via projects like tempest or AUKUS) can be very significant.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

What do we know as FACTS so far?

Liz Truss in her campaigning pledged to increase UK Defence Spending, "2.5 per cent by 2026, 3 per cent by 2030".

Ben Wallace in an interview with Sunday Telegraph has confirmed:
“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.”
Wallace has said this will be £52bn increase to around £100bn by 2030.
(Note: I have not yet seen this reported elsewhere e.g. BBC News website)

That is great - but that is still just verbal pledges - it may well be what they both intend and what they both currently beleive will happen. So as a direction of travel it is good news. But we have yet to see a written pledge in Campaign Mainfesto, let alone a formal commitment from the MoD.

So I am pleased in what both Truss and Wallace have verbally said so far. It appears that there is at least SOME consensus currently with Labour Party that SOME increase in Defence Spending is required. But the General Election is two years away - we don't know what either party will pledge in their campaign manifestos let alone what either party would actually stick to if they win.

So until then we have to keep our hopes moderated, tempered by the unknowns. We can hope that initially each of the UK armed forces will get some extra funding, enough hopefully to cancel or at least postpone any further cuts, hopefully enough to increase personnel recriotment and retention, hopefully enough to restock our stocks of munitions and missiles, including what we have sent to Ukraine. Any capital investments will probably be initially small so it is a while yet before we can play Fantasy Armed Forces, fun though it is. I think the initial increases in UK Defence Spending will be merely correcting some of the recent years underinvestments befor we get anything new.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 17:46 So until then we have to keep our hopes moderated, tempered by the unknowns.
Respectfully I completely disagree.

This increase is a massive amount of taxpayers money. It is simply not acceptable to allocate such an enormous sum without having a very clear idea where it is going. Such an increase warrants the most in-depth root and branch defence and security review since the end of the Cold War.

If these promises are kept and the increase is implemented in a linear fashion the total increase in the seven years between 2023 and 2030 amounts to over £200bn. Even if RN is allocated only 25% of that sum (£50b) it equates to enough money to replace the entire escort fleet, the CVFs, the Amphibs, the SSNs, the entire RFA plus another 48 F35s.

Even allowing for inflation it should amount to a transformational increase in defence spending provided it does actually happen.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
Caribbean

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 21:11
wargame_insomniac wrote: 25 Sep 2022, 17:46 So until then we have to keep our hopes moderated, tempered by the unknowns.
Respectfully I completely disagree.

This increase is a massive amount of taxpayers money. It is simply not acceptable to allocate such an enormous sum without having a very clear idea where it is going. Such an increase warrants the most in-depth root and branch defence and security review since the end of the Cold War.

If these promises are kept and the increase is implemented in a linear fashion the total increase in the seven years between 2023 and 2030 amounts to over £200bn. Even if RN is allocated only 25% of that sum (£50b) it equates to enough money to replace the entire escort fleet, the CVFs, the Amphibs, the SSNs, the entire RFA plus another 48 F35s.

Even allowing for inflation it should amount to a transformational increase in defence spending provided it does actually happen.
Possibly we are arguing the same thing from a different angle. In that I was emphasing that NOTHING has yet been formally agreed. As I said before the direction of travel is great in that both the PM and Defence Secretary have pledged to increase UK Defnce Spending. BUT we do not YET have one single conceret announcement of an additional spending pledge.

"2.5 per cent by 2026, 3 per cent by 2030" sounds brilliant. BUT there is a General Election due at latest in 2024 (and relaistically Liz Truss will wnt as long as possible to set the tone of hr premiership to differentiate herself from Boris). My point was that Truss and Wallace might really intend to hit those targets but also might not get the chance to implement them.

So I think w should be cautious until we have concrete spending plans.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Difficult I know, but highlights that Defence should not be a pawn in politics between the main parties. If HMG and the main opposition had common viewpoint it would allow the MOD to plan with more confidence, and ultimately be more efficient.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 3):
inchSouthcoastsamwargame_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

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by inch »

One would like to think that it will happen especially after recent events in the world and it needs to happen but I somehow don't think we will get there ,think other partys do realise we need to increase defence spending but think they would only go as far as 2.5% ,the biggest worry is the lack of accountability from someone in charge from start to finish of programs , military pissing about changing their minds on programme's half way thru and short term thinking and a totally useless MOD ,if could just sort out them problems even at 2.5% budget it would be a drastically different armed forces,also might add think we need redundancy in materials and manpower

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Not be surprised if the recent fall in £ to US $ would absorb any increase in MoD budget, depends in part how much Treasury bought forward $ for MoD.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out this weekend, the government is sticking to spending settlements for this spending review period.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/upda ... ementation
Don't get too excited current SR21 runs until end of 2024-25 financial year.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Well, perhaps with the sudden focus on undersea infrastructure, maybe the powers that be will suddenly remember that sonar is a rather useful tool and start ordering ships with it fitted. Maybe even re-commission Echo as a stop-gap.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post (total 3):
Tempest414wargame_insomniacPoiuytrewq
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe there is a need to stand up a SNMG-3 in the Baltic
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacJensy

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by BB85 »

[/quote]

"2.5 per cent by 2026, 3 per cent by 2030" sounds brilliant. BUT there is a General Election due at latest in 2024 (and relaistically Liz Truss will wnt as long as possible to set the tone of hr premiership to differentiate herself from Boris). My point was that Truss and Wallace might really intend to hit those targets but also might not get the chance to implement them.

So I think w should be cautious until we have concrete spending plans.
[/quote]

The Tories know full well they will lose the election in 2024, people have long memories and party gate along with this week's fiasco and high interest rates will see them gone.

What is very likely though is that the Tories will sign a number of water tight contracts similar to what Labour did with the aircraft carrier that prevents a future government from cancelling them in the future. I trust Ben Wallace more than I trust his predecessors so here is hoping he makes the right decisions.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post (total 2):
Lord Jimwargame_insomniac

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

BB85 wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 11:00
"2.5 per cent by 2026, 3 per cent by 2030" sounds brilliant. BUT there is a General Election due at latest in 2024 (and relaistically Liz Truss will wnt as long as possible to set the tone of hr premiership to differentiate herself from Boris). My point was that Truss and Wallace might really intend to hit those targets but also might not get the chance to implement them.

So I think w should be cautious until we have concrete spending plans.
[/quote]

The Tories know full well they will lose the election in 2024, people have long memories and party gate along with this week's fiasco and high interest rates will see them gone.

What is very likely though is that the Tories will sign a number of water tight contracts similar to what Labour did with the aircraft carrier that prevents a future government from cancelling them in the future. I trust Ben Wallace more than I trust his predecessors so here is hoping he makes the right decisions.
[/quote]

It all depends on how the economy goes over te next 2 years, if it turns around and people are doing better then everything this year will be forgotten. 2 years is a very long time in politics and economics, it’s a long time for Truss to turn things around and a long time for Starmer to fuck things up.

My question is whether it’s £100bn per year full stop regrardless of the economy’s size or if it’s 3% off GDP. £100bn flat would be nearer 3.5% of gdp on current growth trends.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 10:29 Maybe there is a need to stand up a SNMG-3 in the Baltic
Certainly as and when Sweden and Finland are admitted to NATO.

It may be comprised of smaller vessels than the Destroyers and Frigates that comprise SNMG1 & 2 in the Atlantic / Med. So might be mainly Corvettes and Fast Attack craft better suited to the shallower waters of the Baltic.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I’d be plonking echo or a few minesweepers or some frigates in the North Sea till spring, forget splashing round the South China Sea, Russia or there proxies disable a few pipe lines in the North Sea this winter and putin wins in Ukraine as most European governments will fold with no gas.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
SD67

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 16:13 I’d be plonking echo or a few minesweepers or some frigates in the North Sea till spring, forget splashing round the South China Sea, Russia or there proxies disable a few pipe lines in the North Sea this winter and putin wins in Ukraine as most European governments will fold with no gas.
This is why MROSS is so key, and why it makes sense to keep the B2s where they are so that money can go into real frigates. More T26s and forget the T31 which would be useless against Russian submarines.
”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: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

”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

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Repulse wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 18:42
What can we find down the back of the sofa to actually send to help with this?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

HMS Montrose ?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

The idea that the UK is going to produce a class of Frigates without a hull mounted sonar or a tail is now completely absurd.

Considering the capabilities of the T23’s that they are replacing the entire T31 weapon systems and sensor fit-out needs a complete rethink asap.

A modest batch of River Batch 3 would cover the global flag waving and maritime security role but the T31 class now need to replace the T23s like for like both in terms of capability and in numbers.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
RepulseJohnM

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Best thing to do with the T31 is to sell them on quickly. You could argue they’ve served their purpose getting a second production line up and running, but it needs to build something of use.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixJensy
”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

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jdam »

If only we were building a class of ships with world beating AWS capability that we could build more of :think: I got nothing
BAE need to get their shit together with the type 26.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 10:13 The idea that the UK is going to produce a class of Frigates without a hull mounted sonar or a tail is now completely absurd.
Why?

Adding a sonar to 5 GP frigates, while always one be deployed to the Gulf, means, there will be only 2 or 3 in UK water, which means only one frigate in 24/7 basis to patrol around the north. And that one frigate is not ASW specialist, so its capability is limited.

Why not buy SEASENSE ASW system for ARCIMS USV systems? UK is purchasing 3 sets of ARCIMS for "sweep" task. Adding 3 will make a fleet of 6, which I think will provide at least 2, maybe 3, ATLAS LFAPS active-passive sonar deployed 24/7 around UK.

Why not buy 3 more Sea Guardian UAVs, with ASW kit to provide large-area active-passive sonobuoy scan area, supported by P-8As?
A modest batch of River Batch 3 would cover the global flag waving and maritime security role but the T31 class now need to replace the T23s like for like both in terms of capability and in numbers.
If adding a sonar to (say 3 of the 5) T31 is needed, it is to support the deployed CVTF and/or LRG, on which USV can never steam together, because of very short leg. But doing that will rob money from adding ASW USV, seabed ASW sensor, increase P-8A, and add ASW Sea Guardian UAVs.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

There are reports that the Polish derivative will be equipped with both HMS and VDS, surely the retrospective introduction onto T31 should then be straightforward “budget allowing”.

Come to think of it with RN, Denmark and Poland all using the same basic hull there’s likely opportunities for a joined up approach.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply