Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[RichardIC]

Moved over from the Falklands thread

@ wargame_insomnica

I have noted previously that I believe several ships in the RN have been built bigger than they need to be for their actual armanent. That is why I would like to see ship in between RB2 and T31, a 105m-110m sloop fits that perfectly, as minimum practical size for helicopter operations. Yes the S100 Camcopter is being trialld and it MIGHT augment / replace Wildcats in RN, but I still beleive there is currently a benefot to have a mix of manned helicopters and unmanned UAV to fullfill a variety of missions,

I have no problem with a 105m ship I just don't see the need for a 90 meter and 105 meter ship in the same fleet in my ideal world we would have 8 times 105 x 15 meter ships fitted with a good radar so so CMS 2 x 40mm guns and would have a SH-60 capable hangar Merlin capable flight deck under the flight deck would be a 25 meter covered working deck leading on to a 30 open working deck with a 30 ton crane. These along with 8 x full fat T-31's would conduct global patrol duties in support of the UK and allies

I find it hard to believe anyone is trying to build a case for building smaller ships to fit their initial operating capability armament.

So no taking into account capability insertion through-life? Not to mention the intrinsic benefits of improved sea-keeping, habitability, endurance, ease of maintenance, provision for off-board systems that a larger platform gives you.

So you would build bigger ships, more expensive to build and probably requiring higher crew numbers.Which has lead to RN reducing the numbers ordered of both T45 and T26, and large ships with littl armanents as they were "Fitted For But Not With".....

Or as House of Commons Defence Committee Report “When ships do get to sea they act like porcupines – well-defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities”.....

That is without considering that the Sloops I was proposing would be advance depoyed, and as well as being cheaper and requiring less crew than T31s, would also be smaller and shallower draught, and thus able to access a far wider variety of harbours in the developing countries in the Indo Pacific (and also Africa, south and central America).....

Sloop talk is crazy talk. A larger, more habitable ship with better sea-keeping qualities does not per se mean extra crew.

The “herbivores” comment is in no way related to size it’s related to operational capability.

And which are the harbours you are desperate to get into in the Indo-Pacific? Where can a Type 31 not go that is so critical to access? They’re warships not tourist boats.

[RichardIC]

Moved over from the Falklands thread

@ wargame_insomnica

I have noted previously that I believe several ships in the RN have been built bigger than they need to be for their actual armanent. That is why I would like to see ship in between RB2 and T31, a 105m-110m sloop fits that perfectly, as minimum practical size for helicopter operations. Yes the S100 Camcopter is being trialld and it MIGHT augment / replace Wildcats in RN, but I still beleive there is currently a benefot to have a mix of manned helicopters and unmanned UAV to fullfill a variety of missions,

I have no problem with a 105m ship I just don't see the need for a 90 meter and 105 meter ship in the same fleet in my ideal world we would have 8 times 105 x 15 meter ships fitted with a good radar so so CMS 2 x 40mm guns and would have a SH-60 capable hangar Merlin capable flight deck under the flight deck would be a 25 meter covered working deck leading on to a 30 open working deck with a 30 ton crane. These along with 8 x full fat T-31's would conduct global patrol duties in support of the UK and allies

I find it hard to believe anyone is trying to build a case for building smaller ships to fit their initial operating capability armament.

So no taking into account capability insertion through-life? Not to mention the intrinsic benefits of improved sea-keeping, habitability, endurance, ease of maintenance, provision for off-board systems that a larger platform gives you.

So you would build bigger ships, more expensive to build and probably requiring higher crew numbers.Which has lead to RN reducing the numbers ordered of both T45 and T26, and large ships with littl armanents as they were "Fitted For But Not With".....

Or as House of Commons Defence Committee Report “When ships do get to sea they act like porcupines – well-defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities”.....

That is without considering that the Sloops I was proposing would be advance depoyed, and as well as being cheaper and requiring less crew than T31s, would also be smaller and shallower draught, and thus able to access a far wider variety of harbours in the developing countries in the Indo Pacific (and also Africa, south and central America).....

Sloop talk is crazy talk. A larger, more habitable ship with better sea-keeping qualities does not per se mean extra crew.

The “herbivores” comment is in no way related to size it’s related to operational capability.

And which are the harbours you are desperate to get into in the Indo-Pacific? Where can a Type 31 not go that that is so critical to access? They’re warships not tourist boats.

T31 was absolutely the right decision and let's hope for a second batch of 5.

The RN learned the hard way with the T21 and to a slightly lesser extent, batch one and two T42, that reducing displacement to the bare minimum impacted both sea keeping in heavy seas and made refits and upgrades extremely problematic.

I suppose being the devil's advocate, the cut price T42 and T21 (alongside Leander refits) allowed the RN to maintain needed fleet mass in the 1970's.

[donald_of_tokyo]

It is not a single item which defines the cost:
- Size, of course, costs (to some extent). Larger engine, larger fuel consumption, and larger maintenance load ...
- Equipment costs (significantly).
- And, its integration also costs, rapidly rising when the density becomes too high.

We will NOT rip-off the guns, CAMM and degrade the radar and CMS of T31 to make it a River B2 "OPV" replacement. Will we? No, surely no.

So size do matter. It is just a matter of balance.

I understand the argument for 105m sloop simply comes from the fact that many here thinks T31 is under armed. That's the core. Just saying large ship is good, small ship is good, or vice versa is meaningless.

"For an equipment level of AAA, the ship size of BBB is too large/small". That's it.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Sloop talk is crazy talk. A larger, more habitable ship with better sea-keeping qualities does not per se mean extra crew.

Then why not you make River B2 a 20,000t FLD large vessels, 200m long, 25m wide? And, do you think you can operate it with 36 crew and the same fuel consumption as the River B2? Can the 20,000t ship maneuver as like the River B2 to chase the smuggler?

No.

River B2 is just the right size.

T31 is, a bit larger than needed, considering its armament. Of course, when you talk about up-arming, it is completely a different story.

Then, I understand your point is, if a 105m/3000t sloop is needed when there is already a 6000t T31?

That's a good question and I personally agree that it is not needed, with current budgetary condition.

But, if there be "more money". Designing and building a 105m 3000t sloop will enhance the UK ship-design capability (currently, only BAE Clyde has for escort, and BMT has for RFA vessels. Babcock HAD for Irish OPVs, but not sure it is maintained). It will make a good portfolio of UK export sales (currently there is no competitive heavy-corvette level design to export).

What is more, actually, France did select this approach, by designing and building 5 FDI, with a cost nearly equivalent to building 4 or 5 FREMM (with learning curve).

So, clearly it is NOT a stupid decision, just a matter of choice.

[RichardIC]

It's obvious that the Type 31s are too lightly armed. That's because of the procurement process that challenged industry to meet a specific price-point.

The alternative to the Arrowhead 140 was a much smaller vessel equally as poorly armed. It's absolutely crystal clear which the RN wanted.

It's the capability insertion the RN plans that will be crucial. We don't know what that will look like yet or whether it is fully funded but there's certainly a plan.

[donald_of_tokyo]

It's obvious that the Type 31s are too lightly armed. That's because of the procurement process that challenged industry to meet a specific price-point.
The alternative to the Arrowhead 140 was a much smaller vessel equally as poorly armed. It's absolutely crystal clear which the RN wanted.

It's the capability insertion the RN plans that will be crucial. We don't know what that will look like yet or whether it is fully funded but there's certainly a plan.

Capability insertion is considered elsewhere, as well. Adding BMD capability to T45. Adding self-defense kits to CVFs. Even replacing the radar kits and adding USVs to T26. UAVs for CVF for AAR and/or AEW. 4th and 5th E-7. 10th-12th P-8. Several SeaGuadian UAV for ASW. In addition to all the things Army needs and Air force wants.

I think up-arming T31 come after these items. (just personal opinion). T31 can do what is needed in KIPION. Even in NATO standing fleet, T31 "as is" is NOT the least armed asset (although sitting in the lower side). And, T31's good close-in warfare capability still stands at the top level in the NATO standing fleet.

In short, there are good enough tasks for 5 T31.

Personally, I want 4th and 5th E-7, top-level BMD and "24 CAMM" for T45, and 6-12 SeaGuadian UAVs for ASW, much much more than I want to up-arm T31.

[RichardIC]

Personally, I want 4th and 5th E-7, top-level BMD and "24 CAMM" for T45, and 6-12 SeaGuadian UAVs for ASW, much much more than I want to up-arm T31.

I’d certainly prefer all of those to a “sloop”.

[Tempest414]

It's obvious that the Type 31s are too lightly armed. That's because of the procurement process that challenged industry to meet a specific price-point.

The alternative to the Arrowhead 140 was a much smaller vessel equally as poorly armed. It's absolutely crystal clear which the RN wanted.

It's the capability insertion the RN plans that will be crucial. We don't know what that will look like yet or whether it is fully funded but there's certainly a plan.

As I said a month or so ago I think the RN could pull off a blinder in as much as they wanted 13 global combat ships i.e T-26 but when this was taken away from them they started looking at the back door and when the T-31 RFI went out they clearly started saying in dark corners what they really wanted and when Babcocks come up with A 140 they got what they were looking for a large Global patrol ship.

There is no way on gods earth that when T-31 sails on its first deployment to the Gulf it wont be fitted with 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM and 2170 Anti torpedo system and T-31 will carry the same fit when deployed were every it goes

[SD67]

It's obvious that the Type 31s are too lightly armed. That's because of the procurement process that challenged industry to meet a specific price-point.

The alternative to the Arrowhead 140 was a much smaller vessel equally as poorly armed. It's absolutely crystal clear which the RN wanted.

It's the capability insertion the RN plans that will be crucial. We don't know what that will look like yet or whether it is fully funded but there's certainly a plan.

As I said a month or so ago I think the RN could pull off a blinder in as much as they wanted 13 global combat ships i.e T-26 but when this was taken away from them they started looking at the back door and when the T-31 RFI went out they clearly started saying in dark corners what they really wanted and when Babcocks come up with A 140 they got what they were looking for a large Global patrol ship.

There is no way on gods earth that when T-31 sails on its first deployment to the Gulf it wont be fitted with 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM and 2170 Anti torpedo system and T-31 will carry the same fit when deployed were every it goes

There seems to be a trend that every RN class since T45 is 25% larger than what is strictly needed for its role / armament. If you just multiply the displacement by.8 it makes sense. River B2, T31, T26, QE (and Successor) Either it's some cunning plan by the RN to sneak in some growth margin or just a bit of slack Project Management I'm not sure

[shark bait]

The current generation of ships do much more than the last, as well as increasing crew comfort, so they're gonna be bigger.

[Jensy]

It's obvious that the Type 31s are too lightly armed. That's because of the procurement process that challenged industry to meet a specific price-point.

The alternative to the Arrowhead 140 was a much smaller vessel equally as poorly armed. It's absolutely crystal clear which the RN wanted.

It's the capability insertion the RN plans that will be crucial. We don't know what that will look like yet or whether it is fully funded but there's certainly a plan.

As I said a month or so ago I think the RN could pull off a blinder in as much as they wanted 13 global combat ships i.e T-26 but when this was taken away from them they started looking at the back door and when the T-31 RFI went out they clearly started saying in dark corners what they really wanted and when Babcocks come up with A 140 they got what they were looking for a large Global patrol ship.

There is no way on gods earth that when T-31 sails on its first deployment to the Gulf it wont be fitted with 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM and 2170 Anti torpedo system and T-31 will carry the same fit when deployed were every it goes

There seems to be a trend that every RN class since T45 is 25% larger than what is strictly needed for its role / armament. If you just multiply the displacement by.8 it makes sense. River B2, T31, T26, QE (and Successor) Either it's some cunning plan by the RN to sneak in some growth margin or just a bit of slack Project Management I'm not sure

I would say it's more like a long overdue displacement correction.

Going back to the 70's, all our ships were too small, except the singleton HMS Bristol.

Fearless and Intrepid, the Invincible class, Type 42, Type21 and batches 1 and 2 T22.

This was mainly about keeping up the numbers with a shrinking budget.

The current growth in Warship displacement can be traced back to the immediate aftermath of the Falklands war, with batch 3 of Type 42 and T22 being stretched.

T23 benefited from still being on drawing board at the time and ended up being a far more capable and a larger ship.

Fearless and Intrepid were replaced by the substantially larger Albion and Bulwark.

It's pushed on from there with all classes.

[Dobbo]

Will that displacement correction continue with the T83?

If you extrapolate the growth from T42 to T45 it is likely to be in the region of 15,000 tonnes (I am assuming something more like 13,000 tonnes).

I do wonder if the new assembly hall on the Clyde has considered how it might assemble T83…

[SD67]

The new hall is170 metres long so 4 metres longer than a KDX 3 destroyer - still tight but likely doable

[Dobbo]

The new hall is170 metres long so 4 metres longer than a KDX 3 destroyer - still tight but likely doable

Good to hear - are the KDX3 destroyers not c.10,000 tonnes? I’d be surprised if T83 was longer but I don’t know and it seems as though no margin has been builr in - at least not overtly.

[Tempest414]

how wide is the new hall going to be as they build it diagonally across the hall which dependant on the width could add 10 to 30 meters so a 170 x 60 hall could allow you to build a 200 meter ship

[Scimitar54]

With a consequently SLOW build rate !

[SD67]

how wide is the new hall going to be as they build it diagonally across the hall which dependant on the width could add 10 to 30 meters so a 170 x 60 hall could allow you to build a 200 meter ship

BAEs press release says 81 metres so that should be enough for 2 destroyers side by side lengthways. The T31 assembly hall at Rosyth is 61 metres wide and has been sized for 2 x T31

[Tempest414]

With a consequently SLOW build rate !

That slow build rate is a given as we will only build 6 or so over 12 years anyway you can build blocks and leave them out side the build rate wont be as quick as building 2 ships side by side but could still be say only 25% slower

[Fr0sty125]

I wonder if with the Type 83 the RN will consider going to general purpose. Type 83 high end GP based on the 26 and low end GP Type 31/32.

[Dobbo]

With a consequently SLOW build rate !

That slow build rate is a given as we will only build 6 or so over 12 years anyway you can build blocks and leave them out side the build rate wont be as quick as building 2 ships side by side but could still be say only 25% slower

It wouldn’t surprise me if the T83 / DDX became another AUKUS project.

[Ron5]

T83 size will be based on what technologies are chosen. For example, will two main radars still be needed? Will missiles get smaller as in the AAM domain? Will direct energy weapons take over from missiles?

[SD67]

I wonder if with the Type 83 the RN will consider going to general purpose. Type 83 high end GP based on the 26 and low end GP Type 31/32.

No because the primary mission of the T83 will be air defense of the carriers. Theories abound as to why the RN chose T83 vs T46. I personally think it's to denote a carrier escort like the T82, capable of commanding the carriers defense. In the US that would be a cruiser. In the UK, cruiser denotes empire to the idiot woke masses so can't be used.

[Phil Sayers]

I do think it would be worth considering a Hi-Lo mix consisting of 2 x large, gold plated and extremely expensive cruisers (and may as well term them as such) for dedicated carrier group AAW and cruise missile barrages with 4 x much smaller / more basic AAW destroyers to fill out the fleet. I cannot see another way to solve the conundrum of needing to maintain the current number of six as a minimum and also needing something extremely advanced that will by necessity also cost a fortune.

May also be industrial benefits to be had in giving BAE the task of designing a clean sheet cruiser with a unit cost likely to exceed £2 Billion each (although hopefully not by much ) and Babcock the task of building an AAW T-31 that also has some ASW capability.

[wargame_insomniac]

Maybe the RAN Hunter class might be a suitable template for RN T83 giving greater empahsis on AAW?

[Scimitar54]

T83s have already been stated to be Destroyers that will be heavily biased towards AAW and ABM defence for the ‘carriers. In view of this, they are possibly going to be substantially larger than the T45s. This will be particularly so, if in addition to an adequate Missile Load-out, they are required to have space (and power generation) for the possible future installation of directed energy weapons.