Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

The Dreamer in me would love 4 Cruisers 180 x 24 meters with 1 x 127mm and 4 x 57mm plus 122 VLS the return of RN's Big Cats

HMS Tiger , Lion , Cheetah , Panther

[Dobbo]

I think they will want at least 8 and need a minimum of 6. The strategy has to be to get these numbers but with the requisite capability.

[SD67]

then the RN will need to make choices and not turn it into a Baby Burke. If it’s a carrier escort it likely doesn’t need a big gun or a flight deck sized for a Merlin. A Lynx or 2 x UAVs plus a couple of 57mm should do the job. Certainly no flexible mission space.

What radar? Assume it is not going to be a rotator. Is there a development path for Sampson

Will 1 x MT30 as per T26 provide enough power? I doubt it. If not then 2 x MT30s plus IEP equals basically the same drive train as the QE class, and still not much greater output than a T45. Will that be enough if there’s a step change needed to power directed energy weapons ?
I have a fantasy about dropping a PWR3 in there….

[serge750]

PWR3 & MT30 ! and a shed load more missiles, a modern day kirov battle cruiser - would be awsome ! if only there was the budget for six

[wargame_insomniac]

Ignoring PIP and LIFEX, the RN currently has 18 commissioned escorts, and soon to be 17 once Montrose is decommissioned early bfore end of 2023. This is versus a commonly accepted need to have at least 19 escorts. Including PIP and LIFEX, RN is probably down to 14 active escorts.....

In some recent threads I have been critical of the sizes of RN warships. Whilst I love to see 10,000t AAW Destroyers with 100+ VLS cells, I don't want to see, YET AGAIN, the number of the T83 ordered to be reduced because of higher costs on these larger ships.

My fear is that if the RN push for too large a design for T83, that they will accept just four ships to replace the six*T45. And then wait nervously in case some Treasury bigwigs to ask that, if they are to lead the air defence of the CSG, and that we only have two carriers, surely then we only need two*T83, one for each carrier......

[wargame_insomniac]

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

With the USN's priorities for the 2030s being:

NGAD (Super Hornet replacement) -> DDX -> SSN(X)

I reckon the US and the UK align pretty well for timescale.

The Aussies, however aren't going to need Hobart Class replacements till the 2040s. That said, they have an aspiration for additional AAW platforms, so that date could be brought forward depending on additional numbers.

Canada could also be an ideal partner if they could be convinced to swap their final few CSC T26 variants for a dedicated AAW destroyer, finally replacing the Iroquois Class.

Question is whether a USN platform is affordable or desirable for smaller, poorer navies.

What would also make such a programme interesting would be the temptation for the Royal Navy to finally start adopting Aegis for commonality with our strategic allies...

[Ron5]

The Dreamer in me would love 4 Cruisers 180 x 24 meters with 1 x 127mm and 4 x 57mm plus 122 VLS the return of RN's Big Cats

HMS Tiger , Lion , Cheetah , Panther

Be still my beating heart.

[SD67]

The Dreamer in me would love 4 Cruisers 180 x 24 meters with 1 x 127mm and 4 x 57mm plus 122 VLS the return of RN's Big Cats

HMS Tiger , Lion , Cheetah , Panther

Be still my beating heart.

I bet that's what the Australians end up going for.

[tomuk]

The Dreamer in me would love 4 Cruisers 180 x 24 meters with 1 x 127mm and 4 x 57mm plus 122 VLS the return of RN's Big Cats

HMS Tiger , Lion , Cheetah , Panther

Be still my beating heart.

I bet that's what the Australians end up going for.

No they really really want one of these

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved across….

Vard-7 85 design….

Interesting proposal but the UK and RN need to think muck bigger now. Times have unfortunately very much changed and not for the better.

Using escorts for peacetime missions to keep them active will be much less important in the coming decade but maintaining or expanding the UK’s global presence, defence engagement and HADR contribution will be vital.

The Vard designs are excellent but I think RN need to go bigger than an 85m class and expand the OPVs to include a heavier variant of around 130m/140m.

Something like the Vard 7 313.
https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-313.pdf

These vessels can do virtually everything required in low threat environments and allow the escorts, auxiliaries and amphibs to concentrate on higher priorities.

The RB2s are doing a great job flying the flag and engaging with friendly navies but I believe bigger more capable vessels could achieve much more with little extra cost. The operating costs of a Vard 7 313 would be much lower than a T31 and would provide much more capability in a serious HADR emergency. SF and FCF could operate from them much more effectively than from the T26,T31,T23,T45,RB2,Tides,Waves and Fort Victoria. The mix of aviation and watercraft would make the Vard 7 313 OPVs more versatile (in isolation) than either the Albions or Argus if LCUs were not required. Capability-wise the Vard 7 313 is reminiscent of a modest Bay class minus the floodable dock. Exactly what is needed IMO.

I would cancel the T32 and MRSS programmes and build at least five Vard 7 313 vessels optimised for RN requirements and forward base them around the world. The RB2s can replace the RB1s in the UK EEZ plus continue with the Falklands and Gibraltar.

Use the money saved to rebuild the Amphib fleet properly and concentrate on maximising the T31 and T26 programmes.

[SouthernOne]

The Aussies, however aren't going to need Hobart Class replacements till the 2040s. That said, they have an aspiration for additional AAW platforms, so that date could be brought forward depending on additional numbers.

But think about how long ago the first Arleigh Burke Flight 1 was launched (1989). It has been a very long production run.

[Repulse]

So you are not prposing an OPV or Sloop then but a Corvette and packing all of that into 90m isn't going to be cheap or easy.

I personally do not care if you call it a Sloop or a Corvette, it’s the hull design I care about. Something that balances complexity, capability and ability to build quickly / more widely in the UK.

I’d say what I am proposing, a 57mm AA gun, containerised CAMM, an upgrade to the radar and a hull sonar is perfectly possible. A containerised UAV hangar also is possible by taking up some of the flight deck.

Also, this would be a wartime design with limited shelf life as the rest of the industry steps up (assuming the war isn’t over by then).

[Repulse]

Is this I want a surface ship built in England and any argument will do to achieve that?

No

[SW1]

What’s being repeatedly proposed is what type 31 is just called something else in a different design.


Also a number of the roles being described are what real warships are for and what has traditionally been called sea control and what we have historically seen at our role in the world. There just isn’t a strategic focus or priority engagement to a clear end to make it a reality it’s just window dressing at present with smoke and mirrors.

[wargame_insomniac]

Moved across….

Vard-7 85 design….

Interesting proposal but the UK and RN need to think muck bigger now. Times have unfortunately very much changed and not for the better.

Using escorts for peacetime missions to keep them active will be much less important in the coming decade but maintaining or expanding the UK’s global presence, defence engagement and HADR contribution will be vital.

The Vard designs are excellent but I think RN need to go bigger than an 85m class and expand the OPVs to include a heavier variant of around 130m/140m.

Something like the Vard 7 313.
https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-313.pdf

These vessels can do virtually everything required in low threat environments and allow the escorts, auxiliaries and amphibs to concentrate on higher priorities.

The RB2s are doing a great job flying the flag and engaging with friendly navies but I believe bigger more capable vessels could achieve much more with little extra cost. The operating costs of a Vard 7 313 would be much lower than a T31 and would provide much more capability in a serious HADR emergency. SF and FCF could operate from them much more effectively than from the T26,T31,T23,T45,RB2,Tides,Waves and Fort Victoria. The mix of aviation and watercraft would make the Vard 7 313 OPVs more versatile (in isolation) than either the Albions or Argus if LCUs were not required. Capability-wise the Vard 7 313 is reminiscent of a modest Bay class minus the floodable dock. Exactly what is needed IMO.

I would cancel the T32 and MRSS programmes and build at least five Vard 7 313 vessels optimised for RN requirements and forward base them around the world. The RB2s can replace the RB1s in the UK EEZ plus continue with the Falklands and Gibraltar.

Use the money saved to rebuild the Amphib fleet properly and concentrate on maximising the T31 and T26 programmes.

When the conversation was moved from River B2 thread, you only the single line from donald_of_tokyo re "Vard 7-85" but you didn't quote the bulk of the post talking about trying to increase the relationships between RN and RNZN. Also was considering that the River B2s were starting to require their first routine maintenance, at a time when River B1s were nearing retirement. Whilst the RNZN was unable to crew one of their Vard 7-85 OPV's.

donald_of_tokyo explained it in his usual eloquent manner so I won't try to paraphrase it, other than by noting that his proposal was that RN lease the uncrewed RNZN OPV whilst we were down to 4 active River B2s.

Personally I think that your suggestion of Vard 7-313 might be a great option instead of some of the potential but not yet finalised T32s or MRSS.

But I still think that the River B1s will eventually need replacing by small OPVs, whether Vard, Damen or another manufacturer, so long as they had good seakeeping for their size.

So it may be that RN might need some combination of ships similar to a mixture of Vard 7-313 and 7-85 for different roles & missions.

[Jensy]

The Aussies, however aren't going to need Hobart Class replacements till the 2040s. That said, they have an aspiration for additional AAW platforms, so that date could be brought forward depending on additional numbers.

But think about how long ago the first Arleigh Burke Flight 1 was launched (1989). It has been a very long production run.

Sorry, I don't follow.

Do you mean that additional Hobarts could still be relevant for the RAN in the 2040?

[donald_of_tokyo]

ESM/ECM, waiting for the high Mach AShMs to get within radar detection range with the hope to destroy them is a very high risk game leaving little room for failure.

Dr. Thomas Withington of RUSI an award winning analyst and writer specialising in electronic warfare, radar and military communications writing in Armada on the Rhode and Schwartz Kora-40 ESM/ECM, Electronic Support Measure/Electronic Countermeasure, to be fitted to the new Damen German Navy 10,550t F126 class frigates.

Of interest was his threat assessment of the new generation hypersonic missiles pose to navy ships and design needed to counter with ESM/ECM jamming system.

"The emphasis on automation dovetails with similar emphases on fast reaction times and high probabilities of signal interception. The advent of hypersonic missiles like Russia’s 3M22 Zircon (NATO reporting name SS-N-33) is instructive. The 3M22 may reach speeds of at least Mach-5, the standard definition for hypersonic velocities. This translates into speeds of 3,333 knots (6,174 kilometres-per-hour). An ESM antenna mounted 40-metres (131-feet) above the waterline would detect such a missile following a sea-skimming trajectory at a range of circa 14 nautical miles (26 kilometres) - [Navy Lookout quotes Artisan range as 25 km at Mach 3]. The time between detection and impact would be around 15 seconds. During this time the ship would need to recognise, confirm and track the threat, and initiate soft and hard kill countermeasures. Moreover, AShMs increasingly employ Millimetric Wave (MMW) radar seekers. Using frequencies above 30GHz, MMW radars produce exceptionally sharp pictures of their target. This improves the missile’s accuracy compared to radar seekers using X-band (8.5GHz to 10.68GHz). Encompassing wavebands up to 40GHz will ensure the KORA-40 detect such threats"

A couple of observersions as have seen the speed of the Russian sea skimming hypersonic Zircon missile (solid booster with scramjet cruise engine) with speed of Mach-8 /5,333 knots/9,880 kph and the resultant time between detection to impact of <15 seconds. Often wondered why an ESM has never been developed and fitted to a tethered ship drone flying at ~150 m with necessary power and comms supplied by the ship for 24 hour operation to give a much longer warning time until impact than the < 15 seconds for hypersonic missile on a mast as think it is very difficult for soft or hard kill systems to be effective in the remaining few seconds to activate and divert missile enough before impacting ship due to the missiles inherent very high kinetic energy at hypersonic speed.

R&S Kora-40 system cover the very high wavebands up to 40 GHz to ensure it detects AShM's with the high definition radar seekers, with such high waveband radar seekers and the resultant small FOV give it a greater chance of missing target especially if head on and would place a large premium on very accurate targeting co-ordinates which not easy with ship as its a moving target, though certainly feasible as the Indians demonstrated with their IAF Sukhoi 30 MKI firing the Brahmos-ER missile last May.

The RN has its £500 million Maritime Electronics Warfare Programme (MEWP) for Increments 1 to 3, RN placed a £100 million contract with Babcock, Elbit Systems and QinetiQ consortium in Nov '21 for MEWSIC Increment 1, (Maritime Electronic Warfare System Integrated Capability) ESM/ECM and will be fitted to the T26, T31 and T45 and the aircraft carriers to be installed from ~ 2025 to 2034. with capability for automated operation against missile attacks. Understand Babcock is to be the programme’s technical authority, whilst the hardware will be the Israeli Elbit company's eM-e system, an adaptive, open architecture system with command and control, sensors and countermeasures, no knowledge of QinetiQ role.

Increment 1A is for a trainable launcher for the decoys, needed as the current fixed decoy launchers require ship to maneuver to take up the best possible position for the cloaking effect created by the decoys, maneuvering takes up precious seconds and if not instantaneous the high Mach AShM will have impacted. Safran bidding for the RN contract with their NGDS Configuration D launcher firing the NATO standard 130 mm decoy rounds both mortar launched and rocket fired with its stabilized two axis launcher and able to train very rapidly in both azimuth and elevation in order to achieve accurate placement of the decoys, Safran NGDS has been selected for the CSC T26 and will integrate whichever decoys selected by Canada. The RN also looking for a replacement of the large DLF (3B) inflatable floating decoy with a new Naval Passive Off-Board Decoy (N-POD).

No info on what RN is planning for MEWP Increments 2 and 3.

PS High capability ESM/ECM, the new USN Northrop Grumman SEWIP Blk3/AN/SLQ-32 SEWIP V(7) with its powerful GaN jammer don't come cheap at $79 million each for their Burkes.

https://www.armadainternational.com/202 ... n-frigates

[Poiuytrewq]

So it may be that RN might need some combination of ships similar to a mixture of Vard 7-313 and 7-85 for different roles & missions.

Thanks

Australia and New Zealand are effectively family and should always be treated as such even if an unhelpful administration turns up from time to time and strains relations temporarily.

My main point was that replacing the RB1s with another class of OPVs is relatively straightforward as is Donald’s proposal if RN wish to get involved. HMG and RN have now got much bigger issues that require urgent attention. The global security situation is now much worse than in 2010 when RN was gutted and shows little sign of improvement over the next decade.

Luckily HMG has always stated that when the security situation warrants it the budget will increase. I don’t expect much extra cash for RN in the IR update but I do expect a coherent outcome with the current programs properly funded.

IMO RN has done a pretty good job in recent years within the budget envelope provided. Little has been wasted in the last 10years apart from the lack of hangers on the RB2s and the occasional refit before disposal shenanigans. Some of the disposals have been painful (Ocean, Largs Bay, Fort George) but RN has coped well considering.

IMO however, current planning in on the wrong track due to global events. Direct clashes with Tier1 opponents is looking more likely than at any time since the 1980s. HMG must respond.

The questions is how to respond, reinforce and improve without a massive cash injection into RN?

Actually due to RN sidestepping the worst of the cuts it needn’t be that difficult. Certainly not on the scale of the rebuilding required of the British Army.

The nice to have’s will have to go. The messing around with endless trails for jam tomorrow will have to get sharpened up. Greater numbers of existing vessels that are in build is the obvious way forward to maximise economies of scale.

The priorities are clear:

The two CVFs will now start to show their worth. The goal must be to allow both CSGs to operate concurrently if required with UK escorts and UK F35s. Adding allied vessels to the escort screen is great but the UK must be able to operate independently if required. The F35b purchase must be increased rapidly. Aim for at least 70 to 80 and hand them all across to the fleet air arm. Let the RAF decide around a combination of Typhoon, Tempest and F35a without any compromises arising from naval considerations.

The CASD must be protected. Every resource required must be forthcoming. Hopefully AUKUS with allow SSN numbers to reach 12 ASAP.

RN along with the RAF and the British Army should lead the way in providing security in the North Atlantic both in terms of ASW and providing boots on the ground to reinforce NATO’s northern flank. This must remain the primary focus and take into consideration the new Swedish and Finnish dimensions.

The Amphibious fleet is where most thought needs to be given IMO. The security picture now appears that we have gone back to the future. In which case, does RN actually need what it had before? Perhaps not but six Ellida type MRSS is certainly not the answer either. RN needs more flattops primarily for the Royal Marines to do what they do best but also to launch recover MALE drones so at least two LHDs or LPHs like Ocean are now required. Floodable space for 10 to 12 LCU sized craft is also required so the LPDs need to stay but the lack of embarked aviation needs to be urgently addressed. With two LPHs plus two LPDs, the Bays could be replaced with 3 or four Ellida style MRSS without issue. The distributed assets approach forming into two separate and scalable Littoral Strike Groups is absolutely the correct way forward IMO. Current planning just hasn’t factored in the importance of UAVs in the Littoral or in conducting long range and persistent ASW just yet.

Lastly the OPVs need to more engaged and more capable. The RB2s are doing a great job but the capabilities of a larger OPV like a Vard 7 313 would increase this performance up to another level. The combination of embarked aviation, multiple watercraft up-to LCVP and CB90, multiple off-board systems and PODs make the case for larger OPVs a no-brainer IMO. Not expensive but highly versatile and adaptable, it’s exactly what RN needs to quickly make changes that actually make a difference.

[SW1]

So it may be that RN might need some combination of ships similar to a mixture of Vard 7-313 and 7-85 for different roles & missions.

Thanks

Australia and New Zealand are effectively family and should always be treated as such even if an unhelpful administration turns up from time to time and strains relations temporarily.

My main point was that replacing the RB1s with another class of OPVs is relatively straightforward as is Donald’s proposal if RN wish to get involved. HMG and RN have now got much bigger issues that require urgent attention. The global security situation is now much worse than in 2010 when RN was gutted and shows little sign of improvement over the next decade.

Luckily HMG has always stated that when the security situation warrants it the budget will increase. I don’t expect much extra cash for RN in the IR update but I do expect a coherent outcome with the current programs properly funded.

IMO RN has done a pretty good job in recent years within the budget envelope provided. Little has been wasted in the last 10years apart from the lack of hangers on the RB2s and the occasional refit before disposal shenanigans. Some of the disposals have been painful (Ocean, Largs Bay, Fort George) but RN has coped well considering.

IMO however, current planning in on the wrong track due to global events. Direct clashes with Tier1 opponents is looking more likely than at any time since the 1980s. HMG must respond.

The questions is how to respond, reinforce and improve without a massive cash injection into RN?

Actually due to RN sidestepping the worst of the cuts it needn’t be that difficult. Certainly not on the scale of the rebuilding required of the British Army.

The nice to have’s will have to go. The messing around with endless trails for jam tomorrow will have to get sharpened up. Greater numbers of existing vessels that are in build is the obvious way forward to maximise economies of scale.

The priorities are clear:

The two CVFs will now start to show their worth. The goal must be to allow both CSGs to operate concurrently if required with UK escorts and UK F35s. Adding allied vessels to the escort screen is great but the UK must be able to operate independently if required. The F35b purchase must be increased rapidly. Aim for at least 70 to 80 and hand them all across to the fleet air arm. Let the RAF decide around a combination of Typhoon, Tempest and F35a without any compromises arising from naval considerations.

The CASD must be protected. Every resource required must be forthcoming. Hopefully AUKUS with allow SSN numbers to reach 12 ASAP.

RN along with the RAF and the British Army should lead the way in providing security in the North Atlantic both in terms of ASW and providing boots on the ground to reinforce NATO’s northern flank. This must remain the primary focus and take into consideration the new Swedish and Finnish dimensions.

The Amphibious fleet is where most thought needs to be given IMO. The security picture now appears that we have gone back to the future. In which case, does RN actually need what it had before? Perhaps not but six Ellida type MRSS is certainly not the answer either. RN needs more flattops primarily for the Royal Marines to do what they do best but also to launch recover MALE drones so at least two LHDs or LPHs like Ocean are now required. Floodable space for 10 to 12 LCU sized craft is also required so the LPDs need to stay but the lack of embarked aviation needs to be urgently addressed. With two LPHs plus two LPDs, the Bays could be replaced with 3 or four Ellida style MRSS without issue. The distributed assets approach forming into two separate and scalable Littoral Strike Groups is absolutely the correct way forward IMO. Current planning just hasn’t factored in the importance of UAVs in the Littoral or in conducting long range and persistent ASW just yet.

Lastly the OPVs need to more engaged and more capable. The RB2s are doing a great job but the capabilities of a larger OPV like a Vard 7 313 would increase this performance up to another level. The combination of embarked aviation, multiple watercraft up-to LCVP and CB90, multiple off-board systems and PODs make the case for larger OPVs a no-brainer IMO. Not expensive but highly versatile and adaptable, it’s exactly what RN needs to quickly make changes that actually make a difference.

I think there is a gd bit of rewriting of history. Until the senior leadership of each of the services look themselves in the mirror and admit they are as responsible as anyone else for our current state things going fwd will not improve.

I see very few countries around the world certainly none of major none superpower states that are aiming for anything more than around spending 2% of there gdp spending on defence. Recent spending increase’s announced by many are simply taking them up to thats target. We are already above that target by the accepted measure. There needs to be a much wider focus of government direction for the whole economy and country than simple percentages on defence spending. We need to look back at history to see how that interlocks

On the navy in particular we will likely disagree on their management of the budget since 2010 and indeed previously. The long and short is they’ve spent 24 billion pounds acquiring 16 ships of which nearly half don’t work and the other half late. That is nearly as bad the army’s vehicle effort.


I would agree this is the priority

“ RN along with the RAF and the British Army should lead the way in providing security in the North Atlantic both in terms of ASW and providing boots on the ground to reinforce NATO’s northern flank. This must remain the primary focus and take into consideration the new Swedish and Finnish dimensions.‘

But it is more that just defence policy that must align with this priority and should be thru the JEF construct.


Likewise we need to target security and investment to other areas outside of this priority as aligned with our historical ties. We currently have a scatter gun window dressing at present and needs much more focus in goals and outcomes.

[wargame_insomniac]

@Poiuytrewq
On two CSG's, either both should be available for shorter deployments closer to home, or if undertaking longer deployment to say Pacific, would probably have to alternate.

Agree that need more F35B just for Fleet Air Arm. Its just going to take long time until we reach even four active squadrons. I believe we are only now just preparing to stand up the 2nd operational squadron. I don't know what RAF reaction to thos would be though.

Likewise I am not averse to replacing two of the current amphibs with flat top LPH / LHD, even if smaller than US America class. But every time that is suggested, that is met by howls of protest about not rusking the carriers. However I am not sure how RN could afford them given current actual / likely future budgets.

And I fear the same for Vard 7-313 suggestion. Any low intensity ships need to be cheap so that RN can maximise spending on high intensity warfighting ships. Yes the 5*T32 Frigates and 6*MRSS are on the UK 30 year shipbuilding plan, along with replacement of River B1's. But as far as I know, none of them have actually been funded. So I regard them as hot air from Boris Johnson. And so personally I still think that RN would and IMO probably should go for cheapest option.

If we get any additional funding then my priorities would be purchasing more F35B, 3 more P8, upgrading escorts armanent and above all munitions stocks.

After all that, if there are still funds available then need to keep any low intensity ships as cheap as possible.

But I enjoyed the civilised discussion and I do like elements of what you suggest, even if couldn't agree with whole post.

[SouthernOne]

The Aussies, however aren't going to need Hobart Class replacements till the 2040s. That said, they have an aspiration for additional AAW platforms, so that date could be brought forward depending on additional numbers.

But think about how long ago the first Arleigh Burke Flight 1 was launched (1989). It has been a very long production run.

Sorry, I don't follow.

Do you mean that additional Hobarts could still be relevant for the RAN in the 2040?

If there were an AUKUS program to develop a common hull for an Arleigh Burke / T45 replacement, it would probably be of interest to the RAN. By that time not only will the Hobarts be up for replacement, but the Hunters will also be beginning to look old and limited, particularly in terms of their ability to be upgraded with new/emerging technology systems.

The USN may well be building that hull for a long time, so there would be hot production lines for all the equipment that’s not cost effective to manufacture locally.

The Dreamer in me would love 4 Cruisers 180 x 24 meters with 1 x 127mm and 4 x 57mm plus 122 VLS the return of RN's Big Cats

HMS Tiger , Lion , Cheetah , Panther

Be still my beating heart.

I bet that's what the Australians end up going for.

No they really really want one of these

The next generation Arleigh Burke; yes.

[Fr0sty125]

Moved across….

Vard-7 85 design….

Interesting proposal but the UK and RN need to think muck bigger now. Times have unfortunately very much changed and not for the better.

Using escorts for peacetime missions to keep them active will be much less important in the coming decade but maintaining or expanding the UK’s global presence, defence engagement and HADR contribution will be vital.

The Vard designs are excellent but I think RN need to go bigger than an 85m class and expand the OPVs to include a heavier variant of around 130m/140m.

Something like the Vard 7 313.
https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-313.pdf

These vessels can do virtually everything required in low threat environments and allow the escorts, auxiliaries and amphibs to concentrate on higher priorities.

The RB2s are doing a great job flying the flag and engaging with friendly navies but I believe bigger more capable vessels could achieve much more with little extra cost. The operating costs of a Vard 7 313 would be much lower than a T31 and would provide much more capability in a serious HADR emergency. SF and FCF could operate from them much more effectively than from the T26,T31,T23,T45,RB2,Tides,Waves and Fort Victoria. The mix of aviation and watercraft would make the Vard 7 313 OPVs more versatile (in isolation) than either the Albions or Argus if LCUs were not required. Capability-wise the Vard 7 313 is reminiscent of a modest Bay class minus the floodable dock. Exactly what is needed IMO.

I would cancel the T32 and MRSS programmes and build at least five Vard 7 313 vessels optimised for RN requirements and forward base them around the world. The RB2s can replace the RB1s in the UK EEZ plus continue with the Falklands and Gibraltar.

Use the money saved to rebuild the Amphib fleet properly and concentrate on maximising the T31 and T26 programmes.

When the conversation was moved from River B2 thread, you only the single line from donald_of_tokyo re "Vard 7-85" but you didn't quote the bulk of the post talking about trying to increase the relationships between RN and RNZN. Also was considering that the River B2s were starting to require their first routine maintenance, at a time when River B1s were nearing retirement. Whilst the RNZN was unable to crew one of their Vard 7-85 OPV's.

donald_of_tokyo explained it in his usual eloquent manner so I won't try to paraphrase it, other than by noting that his proposal was that RN lease the uncrewed RNZN OPV whilst we were down to 4 active River B2s.

Personally I think that your suggestion of Vard 7-313 might be a great option instead of some of the potential but not yet finalised T32s or MRSS.

But I still think that the River B1s will eventually need replacing by small OPVs, whether Vard, Damen or another manufacturer, so long as they had good seakeeping for their size.

So it may be that RN might need some combination of ships similar to a mixture of Vard 7-313 and 7-85 for different roles & missions.

If the MRSS is cancelled then there will be nothing to replace the Albion and Bays.

[Poiuytrewq]

On two CSG's, either both should be available for shorter deployments closer to home, or if undertaking longer deployment to say Pacific, would probably have to alternate.

Operating both CVFs concurrently as full CSGs would be an extreme circumstance and certainly a maximum effort scenario but the crucial thing that the UK can achieve it if required.

It’s worth considering that virtually all six T45s and eight T23 ASW/T26 would be required to enable this availability of the CVFs and also ensure the safety of the CASD.

The two LRG/LSGs will require additional escorts as they will likely be configured from distributed assets at short notice. Looking at it from a purely logical basis RN does not have the escorts to achieve this and as recent and past history shows, planning to rely on allies in times of conflict is no plan at all.

Enter the T31 and T32. As many have argued for years the low cost patrol Frigate concept (T31) is a dangerous and unwise treasury induced liability. Luckily RN chose a highly adaptable design with huge growth potential so the T31 can rapidly become the well rounded and highly capable T23 successor that it always should have been.

The T32 is very different and I believe it should be binned immediately if not before. In the security situation that the world now finds itself in it is time to build in strength in depth and allow for a credible rate of attrition once again. The “nice to haves” must be replaced with the “absolutely necessaries”. That includes enough hulls to fight and win whilst incurring losses but also, as @SW1 rightly suggests, platforms that actually work and can be relied upon to perform without fault.

IMO the UK should concentrate on the live production lines if T26 and T31 and forget T32 for the time being. It’s just not necessary unless it turns out to be an improved T31 in the form of a Batch 2.

The five enhanced T31s could then act as escorts for the LRG/LSGs or extra hulls could be added to the T26 or T31 production lines if HMG is willing to increase the funding and manpower required.

Likewise I am not averse to replacing two of the current amphibs with flat top LPH / LHD, even if smaller than US America class. But every time that is suggested, that is met by howls of protest about not rusking the carriers. However I am not sure how RN could afford them given current actual / likely future budgets.

The America class is very different to HMS Ocean and the operating costs are also not comparable.

IMO RN needs flattops for drones not more flightdeck for the F35b. The two capabilities are completely different but if RN doesn’t do this with a matter of urgency they risk being left behind by many second Tier navies. Going forward Amphibious Assault will require large numbers of drones to be effective. MALE drones with large payloads will be crucial but they will also need to land and rearm and quickly re-enter the battle space and the only credible way to do that is from a naval platform.

IMO RN needs two dual use and relatively cost effective Amphibious Assault/Drone Carriers, each of which need cost no more than an Ellida type MRSS.

And I fear the same for Vard 7-313 suggestion. Any low intensity ships need to be cheap so that RN can maximise spending on high intensity warfighting ships.

The Vard 7 313 is about as cheap as it gets considering the capability. I would expect Babcock to be able to build five of them for around the cost of one T26.

The heavy OPV proposal has many advantages:

- Replaces the RB1s by allowing three RB2s to patrol the UK EEZ and two RB2s to be forward based in the Falklands and Gibraltar.

- Allows a persistent HADR platform in each of the Caribbean, East Africa, Indian Ocean and the Asia Pacific. The fifth hull could be in re-fit to maintain excellent availability.

-Allows a persistent SF platform in each of the Caribbean, East Africa, Indian Ocean and the Asia Pacific.

-Potential to add more hulls very cost effectively if required for MCM role etc.

-Building five or six Vard 7 313 vessels is also the cheapest way to keep the drum beat going at Rosyth. The importance of this should not be underestimated.

But I enjoyed the civilised discussion and I do like elements of what you suggest, even if couldn't agree with whole post.

Absolutely no need to agree. It’s the civilised discussion part that is important.

But it is more that just defence policy that must align with this priority and should be thru the JEF construct.

Agreed but the whole JEF structure needs a refresh now that Sweden and Finland will be joining NATO.

Likewise we need to target security and investment to other areas outside of this priority as aligned with our historical ties. We currently have a scatter gun window dressing at present and needs much more focus in goals and outcomes.

Pragmatism must prevail for the foreseeable. Programs must be delivered on time and on budget by avoiding unnecessary risks. The T31 is showing promise in this regard although it is early days.

Likewise the T26 cooperation between the UK, Australia and Canada is very impressive.

AUKUS may take this cooperation up to an even higher level.

[Poiuytrewq]

If the MRSS is cancelled then there will be nothing to replace the Albion and Bays.

Completely agree but it’s not just the Albions and Bays.

My question would be, should six MRSS really be replacing Ocean, Argus, Albion, Bulwark and the four Bays plus potentially the two Tides?

[SW1]

On two CSG's, either both should be available for shorter deployments closer to home, or if undertaking longer deployment to say Pacific, would probably have to alternate.

Operating both CVFs concurrently as full CSGs would be an extreme circumstance and certainly a maximum effort scenario but the crucial thing that the UK can achieve it if required.

It’s worth considering that virtually all six T45s and eight T23 ASW/T26 would be required to enable this availability of the CVFs and also ensure the safety of the CASD.

The two LRG/LSGs will require additional escorts as they will likely be configured from distributed assets at short notice. Looking at it from a purely logical basis RN does not have the escorts to achieve this and as recent and past history shows, planning to rely on allies in times of conflict is no plan at all.

Enter the T31 and T32. As many have argued for years the low cost patrol Frigate concept (T31) is a dangerous and unwise treasury induced liability. Luckily RN chose a highly adaptable design with huge growth potential so the T31 can rapidly become the well rounded and highly capable T23 successor that it always should have been.

The T32 is very different and I believe it should be binned immediately if not before. In the security situation that the world now finds itself in it is time to build in strength in depth and allow for a credible rate of attrition once again. The “nice to haves” must be replaced with the “absolutely necessaries”. That includes enough hulls to fight and win whilst incurring losses but also, as @SW1 rightly suggests, platforms that actually work and can be relied upon to perform without fault.

IMO the UK should concentrate on the live production lines if T26 and T31 and forget T32 for the time being. It’s just not necessary unless it turns out to be an improved T31 in the form of a Batch 2.

The five enhanced T31s could then act as escorts for the LRG/LSGs or extra hulls could be added to the T26 or T31 production lines if HMG is willing to increase the funding and manpower required.

Likewise I am not averse to replacing two of the current amphibs with flat top LPH / LHD, even if smaller than US America class. But every time that is suggested, that is met by howls of protest about not rusking the carriers. However I am not sure how RN could afford them given current actual / likely future budgets.

The America class is very different to HMS Ocean and the operating costs are also not comparable.

IMO RN needs flattops for drones not more flightdeck for the F35b. The two capabilities are completely different but if RN doesn’t do this with a matter of urgency they risk being left behind by many second Tier navies. Going forward Amphibious Assault will require large numbers of drones to be effective. MALE drones with large payloads will be crucial but they will also need to land and rearm and quickly re-enter the battle space and the only credible way to do that is from a naval platform.

IMO RN needs two dual use and relatively cost effective Amphibious Assault/Drone Carriers, each of which need cost no more than an Ellida type MRSS.

And I fear the same for Vard 7-313 suggestion. Any low intensity ships need to be cheap so that RN can maximise spending on high intensity warfighting ships.

The Vard 7 313 is about as cheap as it gets considering the capability. I would expect Babcock to be able to build five of them for around the cost of one T26.

The heavy OPV proposal has many advantages:

- Replaces the RB1s by allowing three RB2s to patrol the UK EEZ and two RB2s to be forward based in the Falklands and Gibraltar.

- Allows a persistent HADR platform in each of the Caribbean, East Africa, Indian Ocean and the Asia Pacific. The fifth hull could be in re-fit to maintain excellent availability.

-Allows a persistent SF platform in each of the Caribbean, East Africa, Indian Ocean and the Asia Pacific.

-Potential to add more hulls very cost effectively if required for MCM role etc.

-Building five or six Vard 7 313 vessels is also the cheapest way to keep the drum beat going at Rosyth. The importance of this should not be underestimated.

But I enjoyed the civilised discussion and I do like elements of what you suggest, even if couldn't agree with whole post.

Absolutely no need to agree. It’s the civilised discussion part that is important.

But it is more that just defence policy that must align with this priority and should be thru the JEF construct.

Agreed but the whole JEF structure needs a refresh now that Sweden and Finland will be joining NATO.

Likewise we need to target security and investment to other areas outside of this priority as aligned with our historical ties. We currently have a scatter gun window dressing at present and needs much more focus in goals and outcomes.

Pragmatism must prevail for the foreseeable. Programs must be delivered on time and on budget by avoiding unnecessary risks. The T31 is showing promise in this regard although it is early days.

Likewise the T26 cooperation between the UK, Australia and Canada is very impressive.

AUKUS may take this cooperation up to an even higher level.

Though not strictly escort related I’ll make one point about what I mean about JEF and a lesson from Ukraine. That is communications. Sweden and Finland have arguably the only two Western manufacturers of 5G infrastructure technology and the UK a golden share purchase with One Web (global coverage by year end) and a hoped for national small satellite launch capability.

Going fwd the option to have both military and civil high speed communications therminals on land sea and air and offering such to future allies like starlink have but with more governmental control in conflict must surely be every bit as important in the trade of goods with partner influence worldwide. If I was looking to garner influence and diplomacy with countries such offering would surely be a gd place to start especially in hard to reach locations

You could go on into things likes power with RR small reactors and finance of such things rather than people being woo’d by China.

It’s more than just defence or ships or whatever. We don’t have limitless cash we need to target we’re we are strong and go all in helping specific areas. It’s need a joined up approach. The competition with nuclear armed powers in economic and the sanctions that interns from aggression.