Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

IMO basing rights are going to be a problem if we’re going up against basically anyone other than Russia. In Libya and Syria the vast majority of western AirPower was naval based. If we had to do A’stan again would we be sure of a friendly reception in, say Pakistan? We’re long gone from Iraq. Ukraine put the Sevastopol air base out of action pretty quickly.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 4):
Repulseserge750PoiuytrewqRon5

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Well an 10hr CAP patrol mission with a 4hr transit time each way & with midair refueling sounds ok in practice, but for the pilots endurance - ok for short tempo operations but if you don't have local basing then a carrier closer to the theatre may be a better option if available with almost the same ground support assets as an airbase 4hrs away, the pilots would have more time in the area & opertune targets do arise, how would the Vietnam/Korea/Falklands war had gone without carriers being part of the equation....they can give you a fair few more options to do things but obviously cost lots of money
These users liked the author serge750 for the post (total 2):
RepulseRon5

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

What SW1 is saying is right we can deploy land based fast air , AAR and drones very quickly almost anywhere

Europe & Easten Med = all NATO bases as needed plus Cyprus
Middle East = Saudi , Oman
Pacific = Japan , Singapore , Australia
South Atlantic = Falklands

But the Carriers are needed to fill the gaps in the South Atlantic most of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific this is seen most effectively by the US who as needed move fast air where needed plus have Carriers

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

SD67 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 20:51 IMO basing rights are going to be a problem if we’re going up against basically anyone other than Russia. In Libya and Syria the vast majority of western AirPower was naval based. If we had to do A’stan again would we be sure of a friendly reception in, say Pakistan? We’re long gone from Iraq. Ukraine put the Sevastopol air base out of action pretty quickly.
Why would an Allied country ask us to come and defend their territory then not let us be based there? Why would we go if that was the deal?

Could you see Finland or Qatar say we would like you to help us defend our borders but you can’t put any aircraft on our bases, vehicles on the land or use our ports?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

With an increasing multi-polar world with increasingly dominant regional powers, I think it would be naive to think that UK and the US will always have friends that are willing and able to provide operating bases in all the regions where we will need to “fight”.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
serge750
”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: 26 Nov 2022, 09:48 With an increasing multi-polar world with increasingly dominant regional powers, I think it would be naive to think that UK and the US will always have friends that are willing and able to provide operating bases in all the regions where we will need to “fight”.
By that matrix it will be naive to think aircraft carriers will last long in areas we need to fight as once actors have closed down our allied land bases they will turn to the carriers if they haven't all ready

Now in your perdicted case where we and our allies are denied use of current land bases would lead us back to a WW11 way of doing thing like in the Pacific where the carriers and USMC took Islands where land bases where built and so and so on

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Tempest414 wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 09:26 What SW1 is saying is right we can deploy land based fast air , AAR and drones very quickly almost anywhere

Europe & Easten Med = all NATO bases as needed plus Cyprus
Middle East = Saudi , Oman
Pacific = Japan , Singapore , Australia
South Atlantic = Falklands

But the Carriers are needed to fill the gaps in the South Atlantic most of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific this is seen most effectively by the US who as needed move fast air where needed plus have Carriers
With the exception of Cyprus and the Falklands, these are all sovereign states. You need permission. May not be as easy as it has been in the past. There may be a quid pro quo or three. There's a NATO country called Germany that created a large detour for flights to Ukraine. And it takes time, building up a stockpile of equipment so as to be able to support offensive operations. The mere act of making the request could itself be seen as an escalation. Whereas a carrier can just sit there in International waters and deter.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
Repulse

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 10:29
Repulse wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 09:48 With an increasing multi-polar world with increasingly dominant regional powers, I think it would be naive to think that UK and the US will always have friends that are willing and able to provide operating bases in all the regions where we will need to “fight”.
By that matrix it will be naive to think aircraft carriers will last long in areas we need to fight as once actors have closed down our allied land bases they will turn to the carriers if they haven't all ready

Now in your perdicted case where we and our allies are denied use of current land bases would lead us back to a WW11 way of doing thing like in the Pacific where the carriers and USMC took Islands where land bases where built and so and so on
Of course the Carriers are targets, as would be any in theatre land base, that’s why the escorting group needs to be top tier and multi-layered. In fact for the very reason that sea or land operating bases are targets that host nations will think twice about allowing their bases to be used for hostile operations as effectively they themselves will be declaring war (and given recent US withdrawals, they probably will be thinking that they be left by themselves to face any come back).

I’m terms of your WW2 Pacific analogy it really depends what you are taking about. The first thought should be to prevent conflict by being present and showing that you are willing to back allies, second is to help defend allies and only when you’ve failed do you need to think about re-taking ground. Once you get to that final part I suspect you will quickly realise there is a whole host of capabilities that you don’t have and need, and then it’s about how quickly you can grow them.
”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: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 11:37
Tempest414 wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 10:29
Repulse wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 09:48 With an increasing multi-polar world with increasingly dominant regional powers, I think it would be naive to think that UK and the US will always have friends that are willing and able to provide operating bases in all the regions where we will need to “fight”.
By that matrix it will be naive to think aircraft carriers will last long in areas we need to fight as once actors have closed down our allied land bases they will turn to the carriers if they haven't all ready

Now in your perdicted case where we and our allies are denied use of current land bases would lead us back to a WW11 way of doing thing like in the Pacific where the carriers and USMC took Islands where land bases where built and so and so on
Of course the Carriers are targets, as would be any in theatre land base, that’s why the escorting group needs to be top tier and multi-layered. In fact for the very reason that sea or land operating bases are targets that host nations will think twice about allowing their bases to be used for hostile operations as effectively they themselves will be declaring war (and given recent US withdrawals, they probably will be thinking that they be left by themselves to face any come back).

I’m terms of your WW2 Pacific analogy it really depends what you are taking about. The first thought should be to prevent conflict by being present and showing that you are willing to back allies, second is to help defend allies and only when you’ve failed do you need to think about re-taking ground. Once you get to that final part I suspect you will quickly realise there is a whole host of capabilities that you don’t have and need, and then it’s about how quickly you can grow them.
So you’re back to a force for good interventionist policy then extremely unlikely given the past decade not a defence of territory policy.

On 2% of gdp and relatively small number of assets priorities need to be set.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SD67 wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 11:34
Tempest414 wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 09:26 What SW1 is saying is right we can deploy land based fast air , AAR and drones very quickly almost anywhere

Europe & Easten Med = all NATO bases as needed plus Cyprus
Middle East = Saudi , Oman
Pacific = Japan , Singapore , Australia
South Atlantic = Falklands

But the Carriers are needed to fill the gaps in the South Atlantic most of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific this is seen most effectively by the US who as needed move fast air where needed plus have Carriers
With the exception of Cyprus and the Falklands, these are all sovereign states. You need permission. May not be as easy as it has been in the past. There may be a quid pro quo or three. There's a NATO country called Germany that created a large detour for flights to Ukraine. And it takes time, building up a stockpile of equipment so as to be able to support offensive operations. The mere act of making the request could itself be seen as an escalation. Whereas a carrier can just sit there in International waters and deter.
I will always advocate for carriers as you will see on other threads I am advocating for the MRSS to be 200 x 32 meter flattops to allow the full use of long range drones and helicopters of all types. However discounting the use of land based fast air to support allies across the world is not right every thing has a time and a place and land based fast air will always get to a new area of concern first
These users liked the author Tempest414 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: 26 Nov 2022, 11:51 So you’re back to a force for good interventionist policy then extremely unlikely given the past decade not a defence of territory policy.

On 2% of gdp and relatively small number of assets priorities need to be set.
Nope, peace making interventionist operations will be very limited, and never at the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan. More surgical global operations, conducted with speed and with limited objectives.

Preventing Iran gaining nuclear weapons is a good 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

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 11:34 .... building up a stockpile of equipment so as to be able to support offensive operations ...
That's the key.

Yes, you can fly a Typhoon to any friendly airport airport in hours. Might even be available the next day. But to support an air campaign needs a shed load of heavy supplies that have to come by sea to a friendly nearby port. Takes weeks/months.

A carrier comes with everything it needs for an extended campaign either onboard or onboard its FSS & Tides.

Not sure why @SW1 thinks the Navy needs strategic AAR "that nobody thinks of". Damn right the Navy doesn't think of something it doesn't need.

I'm excluding Europe, not sure NATO needs the UK to deploy any attack aircraft there in the penny packets that it does. Doesn't seem to add a lot.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
serge750

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 19:08
SD67 wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 11:34 .... building up a stockpile of equipment so as to be able to support offensive operations ...
That's the key.

Yes, you can fly a Typhoon to any friendly airport airport in hours. Might even be available the next day. But to support an air campaign needs a shed load of heavy supplies that have to come by sea to a friendly nearby port. Takes weeks/months.

A carrier comes with everything it needs for an extended campaign either onboard or onboard its FSS & Tides.

Not sure why @SW1 thinks the Navy needs strategic AAR "that nobody thinks of". Damn right the Navy doesn't think of something it doesn't need.

I'm excluding Europe, not sure NATO needs the UK to deploy any attack aircraft there in the penny packets that it does. Doesn't seem to add a lot.
Are you two completely forgetting that the RAF has 8 x C-17's , 14 x A330 MRTT and 21 A400M I think they are more than capable of keeping 12 Typhoon's plus 4 Reapers going as long as needed anywhere they want in fact as an ex RAF officer I know they can

And we also need to remember that all that fast air coming off the carriers was tanked by land based AAR over the last 20 years
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
SW1

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Coming back to escorts for a number of the reasons above having the Type 31's dotted around the world fitted and armed with

1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM plus a 8 cell Mk-41 with 8 x Tomahawk Blk-V and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team would give the UK a lot of options when it came to intervention

A squadron of 3 type 31's coming together could bring 24 NSM's , 24 Tomahawks and 6 Wildcats helicopters which is not to be discounted when given the Type 31's long legs
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
SD67SW1

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

I'm sure Ukraine could do quite a bit with that fleet in the Black Sea right now, supported by say 3-4 second hand MCMs, and half a dozen FACs. That would go a long way to "winning the peace", the Ukranians could pay for it over 20 years with gas from the Donbas.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 10:05 Coming back to escorts for a number of the reasons above having the Type 31's dotted around the world fitted and armed with

1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM plus a 8 cell Mk-41 with 8 x Tomahawk Blk-V and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team would give the UK a lot of options when it came to intervention

A squadron of 3 type 31's coming together could bring 24 NSM's , 24 Tomahawks and 6 Wildcats helicopters which is not to be discounted when given the Type 31's long legs
You could of built 8 ships like that positioned 4 fwd in Diego Garcia for operations in west Africa and Asia pacific and 4 fwd in the Gibraltar for operations in the Mediterranean, east Africa and the south Atlantic allowing say 3 in each group available for taskings much like the US navy has done in rota. I bet it would have been a damn sight cheaper than the 17b we are spending on 2 carriers and a few f35s but we just like to complain we don’t have enough money.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 12:41
Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 10:05 Coming back to escorts for a number of the reasons above having the Type 31's dotted around the world fitted and armed with

1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM plus a 8 cell Mk-41 with 8 x Tomahawk Blk-V and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team would give the UK a lot of options when it came to intervention

A squadron of 3 type 31's coming together could bring 24 NSM's , 24 Tomahawks and 6 Wildcats helicopters which is not to be discounted when given the Type 31's long legs
You could of built 8 ships like that positioned 4 fwd in Diego Garcia for operations in west Africa and Asia pacific and 4 fwd in the Gibraltar for operations in the Mediterranean, east Africa and the south Atlantic allowing say 3 in each group available for taskings much like the US navy has done in rota. I bet it would have been a damn sight cheaper than the 17b we are spending on 2 carriers and a few f35s but we just like to complain we don’t have enough money.
I have been saying this for some time and I have also said that for the money type 32 would cost we could build 3 more type 31's and 3 more River B2's plus arm all 8 Type 31's as laid out above plus give all the RB2's a 40mm and 2 Camcopter's plus 10 or so Hero 120's

A force of 4 x Type 31's , 4 RB2's and 2 MRSS in the Indo Pacific as laid out above would give the UK a lot of options for interventions while keeping the British Atlantic fleet made up of

2 x Carrier , 6 T-45 , 8 T-26 , 4 T-31 , 4 RB2's , 3 x SSS , 4 MRSS , 7 SSN , 4 SSBN

As and when more punch is needed EoS then send a SSN or CSG

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 10:05 Coming back to escorts for a number of the reasons above having the Type 31's dotted around the world fitted and armed with

1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM plus a 8 cell Mk-41 with 8 x Tomahawk Blk-V and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team would give the UK a lot of options when it came to intervention

A squadron of 3 type 31's coming together could bring 24 NSM's , 24 Tomahawks and 6 Wildcats helicopters which is not to be discounted when given the Type 31's long legs
- If there be any Tomahawk Blk-V, I will first put it on T26.
- If there be "12 more CAMM", I will put it on T45 (to make it 36 when CAMM to be added).
- Among the "11 sets of NSM" to be mounted T23ASW and T45, I agree the "5 on T23" will then likely move to T31. But, I hope it goes to T26.
because I think up-arming 1st-tier assets in RN is very important.

If T26's missile carriage is with 48x CAMM, 12x TLAM (later replaced with long-range sub-sonic version of FC/ASW) and 12x hyper-sonic version of FC/ASW and 8x NSM, it will have very good punch even against 1st-tier enemy as a member of CSG. NSM will be used against frigates and corvettes, hypersonic FC/ASW against HVU of enemy fleet, TLAM against strategic in-land target.

If T45's missile carriage is with 48x Aster-30 Blk1 NT, 36x CAMM and 8x NSM, I think it is already not bad. "84" anti-air missiles is not so bad.

Then the T31 will be with, "1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 12 CAMM , 0 x NSM plus no Mk-41, and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team". I think this T31 can do something already, even with this light armament. It will still be
- perfect assets in peace-time gray zone handling (like Iran)
- good enough assets in top-tier war-time RFA/logistic fleet escorting
- perfect assets as an escort in amphibious assault operations against very basic militia/terrorists (Sierra Leone, Houthi rebels, Lebanon, etc.). One or two Wildcats with 4x SeaVenoms can handle almost all of the threats less-capable than heavy corvette.

This T31 will not be sent to hot-war in singleton against 2nd-tier nations (Argentina, Iran and where?), but I think
- such enemy is very niche
- even with 24x CAMM, 8x NSM, will you send the T31 on hot-war against those nations? I'm afraid not.

I'm saying this NOT because I believe T31 must be lightly armed, but because I think adding teeth to RN's top-tier assets (F35, CVF, T45, T26, SSN, Merlin etc) is much more important. Compared to these needs, more CAMM, several NSM (and may be hull sonar) on T31 are all within "nice to have" regime.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 09:11
Ron5 wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 19:08
SD67 wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 11:34 .... building up a stockpile of equipment so as to be able to support offensive operations ...
That's the key.

Yes, you can fly a Typhoon to any friendly airport airport in hours. Might even be available the next day. But to support an air campaign needs a shed load of heavy supplies that have to come by sea to a friendly nearby port. Takes weeks/months.

A carrier comes with everything it needs for an extended campaign either onboard or onboard its FSS & Tides.

Not sure why @SW1 thinks the Navy needs strategic AAR "that nobody thinks of". Damn right the Navy doesn't think of something it doesn't need.

I'm excluding Europe, not sure NATO needs the UK to deploy any attack aircraft there in the penny packets that it does. Doesn't seem to add a lot.
Are you two completely forgetting that the RAF has 8 x C-17's , 14 x A330 MRTT and 21 A400M I think they are more than capable of keeping 12 Typhoon's plus 4 Reapers going as long as needed anywhere they want in fact as an ex RAF officer I know they can

And we also need to remember that all that fast air coming off the carriers was tanked by land based AAR over the last 20 years
Ha ha ha, most amusing

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 10:05 Coming back to escorts for a number of the reasons above having the Type 31's dotted around the world fitted and armed with

1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM plus a 8 cell Mk-41 with 8 x Tomahawk Blk-V and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team would give the UK a lot of options when it came to intervention

A squadron of 3 type 31's coming together could bring 24 NSM's , 24 Tomahawks and 6 Wildcats helicopters which is not to be discounted when given the Type 31's long legs
Even funnier.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 12:41
Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 10:05 Coming back to escorts for a number of the reasons above having the Type 31's dotted around the world fitted and armed with

1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM plus a 8 cell Mk-41 with 8 x Tomahawk Blk-V and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team would give the UK a lot of options when it came to intervention

A squadron of 3 type 31's coming together could bring 24 NSM's , 24 Tomahawks and 6 Wildcats helicopters which is not to be discounted when given the Type 31's long legs
You could of built 8 ships like that positioned 4 fwd in Diego Garcia for operations in west Africa and Asia pacific and 4 fwd in the Gibraltar for operations in the Mediterranean, east Africa and the south Atlantic allowing say 3 in each group available for taskings much like the US navy has done in rota. I bet it would have been a damn sight cheaper than the 17b we are spending on 2 carriers and a few f35s but we just like to complain we don’t have enough money.
All supported by the RAF flying out of local airports no doubt.

Who needs a Navy just buy more and more T31s? Sooo cheap, can do everything!! Scrap the rest of the fleet.

I wish I had some of the stuff you guys are drinking or smoking, would make a rather grey day a lot more cheery.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 13:41
Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 10:05 Coming back to escorts for a number of the reasons above having the Type 31's dotted around the world fitted and armed with

1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM plus a 8 cell Mk-41 with 8 x Tomahawk Blk-V and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team would give the UK a lot of options when it came to intervention

A squadron of 3 type 31's coming together could bring 24 NSM's , 24 Tomahawks and 6 Wildcats helicopters which is not to be discounted when given the Type 31's long legs
- If there be any Tomahawk Blk-V, I will first put it on T26.
- If there be "12 more CAMM", I will put it on T45 (to make it 36 when CAMM to be added).
- Among the "11 sets of NSM" to be mounted T23ASW and T45, I agree the "5 on T23" will then likely move to T31. But, I hope it goes to T26.
because I think up-arming 1st-tier assets in RN is very important.

If T26's missile carriage is with 48x CAMM, 12x TLAM (later replaced with long-range sub-sonic version of FC/ASW) and 12x hyper-sonic version of FC/ASW and 8x NSM, it will have very good punch even against 1st-tier enemy as a member of CSG. NSM will be used against frigates and corvettes, hypersonic FC/ASW against HVU of enemy fleet, TLAM against strategic in-land target.

If T45's missile carriage is with 48x Aster-30 Blk1 NT, 36x CAMM and 8x NSM, I think it is already not bad. "84" anti-air missiles is not so bad.

Then the T31 will be with, "1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 12 CAMM , 0 x NSM plus no Mk-41, and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team". I think this T31 can do something already, even with this light armament. It will still be
- perfect assets in peace-time gray zone handling (like Iran)
- good enough assets in top-tier war-time RFA/logistic fleet escorting
- perfect assets as an escort in amphibious assault operations against very basic militia/terrorists (Sierra Leone, Houthi rebels, Lebanon, etc.). One or two Wildcats with 4x SeaVenoms can handle almost all of the threats less-capable than heavy corvette.

This T31 will not be sent to hot-war in singleton against 2nd-tier nations (Argentina, Iran and where?), but I think
- such enemy is very niche
- even with 24x CAMM, 8x NSM, will you send the T31 on hot-war against those nations? I'm afraid not.

I'm saying this NOT because I believe T31 must be lightly armed, but because I think adding teeth to RN's top-tier assets (F35, CVF, T45, T26, SSN, Merlin etc) is much more important. Compared to these needs, more CAMM, several NSM (and may be hull sonar) on T31 are all within "nice to have" regime.
So up-armed T31's are suitable for military operations against folks that have zero maritime capability? Sounds about right.

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 »

Ron5 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 15:23So up-armed T31's are suitable for military operations against folks that have zero maritime capability? Sounds about right.
Yes and No.

Modern Heavy Corvette is equivalent to (light) frigates in the 1990s. It is also costy, like $250-300M (unit cost). Modern fast missile craft costs typically as much as $100M (unit cost) or even more. Actually, number of navies operating fast missile craft is limited. The number actually significantly decreased from those in 1990s. To counter a navy with modern heavy corvette(s) and/or several fast missile crafts, T31 (~£350M in unit cost) in singleton is not a good answer.

On the other hand, number of nations and militia capable of operating sub-sonic anti-ship missile (from land) has increased. With suicide drones coming, it will significantly increase in near future. Iranian fast boat swarm has also been an issue for long, against which Aster SAM nor SeaWolf nor Harpoon nor NSM are of good use. CAMM, may be (with anti-surface mode), but a single CAMM will be expensive than a single fast-boat. 57mm/40mm 3P and/or LMMs are much more suited.

As such, when there is only 5 T31 in the fleet, they can surely find good tasks to handle. But, I'm afraid 5 is enough. Not sure when it comes to 10 hulls (like 5 T31 and 5 T32). As such, I think T32 shall be better equipped, or in place "3 more T26" shall be built, not T3X series.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 15:11
Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 10:05 Coming back to escorts for a number of the reasons above having the Type 31's dotted around the world fitted and armed with

1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM plus a 8 cell Mk-41 with 8 x Tomahawk Blk-V and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team would give the UK a lot of options when it came to intervention

A squadron of 3 type 31's coming together could bring 24 NSM's , 24 Tomahawks and 6 Wildcats helicopters which is not to be discounted when given the Type 31's long legs
Even funnier.
Ron you are such a prick you type a lot of words but say nothing of any use so come on give us your best tactical way forward for a Navy like the RN or wind your f-in neck in

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 12:41
Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 10:05 Coming back to escorts for a number of the reasons above having the Type 31's dotted around the world fitted and armed with

1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM plus a 8 cell Mk-41 with 8 x Tomahawk Blk-V and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team would give the UK a lot of options when it came to intervention

A squadron of 3 type 31's coming together could bring 24 NSM's , 24 Tomahawks and 6 Wildcats helicopters which is not to be discounted when given the Type 31's long legs
You could of built 8 ships like that positioned 4 fwd in Diego Garcia for operations in west Africa and Asia pacific and 4 fwd in the Gibraltar for operations in the Mediterranean, east Africa and the south Atlantic allowing say 3 in each group available for taskings much like the US navy has done in rota.
I am not sure that the RN would want to concentrate 4 such ships concentrated in Gibralter and Diego Garcia. I think we would be deployed in more dispersed manner.

Assuming that the main RN tier-one warfighting escorts are concentrated in UK, North Sea, North Atlantic, GIUK Gap, Barents Sea etc, that leaves the lower tier two/three escorts covering the Indo-Pacific, Med, South Atlantic and West Alantic + Caribbean, covering either British Overseas Territories and/or global shipping lanes on whuch UK depends for both imports and exports. We have discussed several times on both Future Escorts and OPV threads on exactly what type of ships and how well they should be equipped / armed. I don't want to get too bogged down into precisely how many ships we should have, what systems and armanent equipped with etc.

If we assume that we are looking at 4 ships covering Med, west Africa and South Atlantic, we have RN bases at Gibralter and Falklands. There is a naval base in Cyprus but I wonder if we wanted a ship based in east Med whether we would be better basing a ship at Souda Bay in Crete, sharing the facilities with USN? Ideally we could so with having at least a small RN naval base in Saint Helena (Ruperts Bay) and/or Ascension Island (Georgetown), even if only for OPV

Re Diego Garcia, I am not sure that UK currently has any signifcant forces based there - my understanding is that is used by the US. I know the UK Government is negotitating with Mauritious Government to try to come to an agreement about what happens to Diego Garcia. I hope that UK and US are still able to use as an airbase and port.

But even if Diego Garcia is not available, we still have access to several allied ports in Bahrain, Oman, Singapore and Australia. We do have UK army bases in Kenya and Brunei - it would be great if we could negotitate use of naval facilities there, even if only able to cope with smaller ships such as T31 and especially OPV.

So I think we are (currently) unlikely to have 8*T31 concentrated in just two naval bases you suggested. But conceivably we might have close to such a number of T31 and OPV combined, but advance deployed in a more spread out manner than you were suggesting, using a variety of UK and allied naval bases.

Post Reply