Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I do understand UK need to think much of tier-1 level conflict.

But, it does NOT mean RN must invest on all aspects of assets; SSBN, CVTF, LRG, etc.

First of all, UK need to define the "primary enemy" or "primary theater". And then, RN must "shift" its resource to better handle these threats. In 1980, Knots cut was actually focused on ASW, which was good in its nature. But, it immediately shown to be too short-sighted by the Falklands war. The war told us, RN also needs "balance".

So, this "shift" must be a bit modest. But, there must be a shift.

For me, RN must invest on increasing ammunition, then again on ammo, and only then, on BMD, anti-hyper-sonic ASM defense, and introduce hundreds of drones. "tier-1" means as such. All of them cost a lot.... Yes, a lot.

LRG? No big use against tier-1. But, as the Falklands war lessons learned, RN does need LRG, but it is not a good tool against any tier-1 war. So, it must be at a modest level. Current Albion + 3 Bay is not so bad.

RFA? This is the key in tier-1 war. If no logistics, no victory.

Escorts? T45, T23, T26 has many points to discuss, but specifically on T31.
Up-arming?
- 24 CAMM? yes (more ammo carried).
- ASW? No. More P-8 and SeaGuadian ASW UAV is much more important.
- NSM? No. Let SeaVenom do the job.
T31 is covering the Gulf (for oil) and escorting the logistics fleet, not a primary asset against tier-1.

Just as a starter...

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

When it comes to Type 31 maybe the way forward is to fit 24 x CAMM and 16 x GSDB which have a 150km range. GSDB's could be used by both the Army and Navy and at about 60,000 dollars a pop are cheap but would give T-31 a land and sea strike capability until NSM can be moved over

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The lesson of the Falklands as it has been in so many other areas is, that if you maintain a sufficient presence and can move quickly to support that presence in an area which is vitally important to you then you stop the war before it begins.

It was the withdrawal of that presence that lead to the assumption we were no longer interested in the region.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Fr0sty125 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 00:37
wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 10:19
Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 00:12 Moved across….
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 26 Feb 2023, 06:28Vard-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.
Had you lookd up Vard 7 313??

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 16:09 I do understand UK need to think much of tier-1 level conflict.

But, it does NOT mean RN must invest on all aspects of assets; SSBN, CVTF, LRG, etc.

First of all, UK need to define the "primary enemy" or "primary theater". And then, RN must "shift" its resource to better handle these threats. In 1980, Knots cut was actually focused on ASW, which was good in its nature. But, it immediately shown to be too short-sighted by the Falklands war. The war told us, RN also needs "balance".

So, this "shift" must be a bit modest. But, there must be a shift.

For me, RN must invest on increasing ammunition, then again on ammo, and only then, on BMD, anti-hyper-sonic ASM defense, and introduce hundreds of drones. "tier-1" means as such. All of them cost a lot.... Yes, a lot.

LRG? No big use against tier-1. But, as the Falklands war lessons learned, RN does need LRG, but it is not a good tool against any tier-1 war. So, it must be at a modest level. Current Albion + 3 Bay is not so bad.

RFA? This is the key in tier-1 war. If no logistics, no victory.

Escorts? T45, T23, T26 has many points to discuss, but specifically on T31.
Up-arming?
- 24 CAMM? yes (more ammo carried).
- ASW? No. More P-8 and SeaGuadian ASW UAV is much more important.
- NSM? No. Let SeaVenom do the job.
T31 is covering the Gulf (for oil) and escorting the logistics fleet, not a primary asset against tier-1.

Just as a starter...
Re ASW, my concern is that T31 will be mainly operating solo or with LRG, whereas T26 + T45 will be mainly operating to protect CSG and CASD. Therefore I still want T31 to be able to locate and then defend itself against ASW threats.

Re SeaVenoms, do you mean Wildcat mounted??

Again I go back to the fact that RN have ordered 11 sets of NSM - exactly enought in medium term (i.e. once T23s are retired) for all 6*T45 and 5*T31. Whereas T26 will be presumed to be fielding Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon.

Fr0sty125
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 09 Feb 2023, 17:18
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Fr0sty125 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 19:41
Fr0sty125 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 00:37
wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 10:19
Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 00:12 Moved across….
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 26 Feb 2023, 06:28Vard-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.
Had you lookd up Vard 7 313??
Yes they are too small and have no welll deck/dock for XLUUV, USV or LCU. Updated enforcer with hanger, NS110 or Artisan, CAMM and 40mmMk4 is a better option. Albions are already fitted with CMS, Artisan and CIWS so only CAMM is an additional equipment.

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 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 20:02
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 16:09...
Escorts? T45, T23, T26 has many points to discuss, but specifically on T31.
Up-arming?
- 24 CAMM? yes (more ammo carried).
- ASW? No. More P-8 and SeaGuadian ASW UAV is much more important.
- NSM? No. Let SeaVenom do the job.
T31 is covering the Gulf (for oil) and escorting the logistics fleet, not a primary asset against tier-1.
Re ASW, my concern is that T31 will be mainly operating solo or with LRG, whereas T26 + T45 will be mainly operating to protect CSG and CASD. Therefore I still want T31 to be able to locate and then defend itself against ASW threats.
Exactly T31 will be operating in solo or with LRG, I agree. I also agree there can be a small but non-negligible SSK threat in some very limited cases. This is because, if the SSK threat is large, we need a few T26s.

So the talk must be limited to "low threat", say, one or two "30-40 years old SSK". Very niche case.

And in this case, what RN needs is a detachment of SeaGuadian ASW-UAV, I think. A hull sonar on T31 will save nothing, I guess. And, adding comprehensive ASW suite to T31 for this "very niche case" is not cost effective when RN need many money to buy more ammo.
Re SeaVenoms, do you mean Wildcat mounted??
Yes. No problem. If needed, we need SeaVenom blk2, with longer range. Only that will work well.
Again I go back to the fact that RN have ordered 11 sets of NSM - exactly enought in medium term (i.e. once T23s are retired) for all 6*T45 and 5*T31. Whereas T26 will be presumed to be fielding Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon.
Not sure.

If I see at least 200 units of FC/ASW missiles ordered, then I am happy to reuse T23's NSMs on T31. If not, T26 initially needs NSM. Actually, I want to see UK ordering 400-500 TLAM blk V now, for T26. As it is new build and addition to the already almost-full order lists (TLAM) or newly standing up the production line (FC/ASW), we need to wait for 3-5 years before the first unit delivery, and 5-8 years for the last unit.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Fr0sty125 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 21:42
wargame_insomniac wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 19:41 Had you lookd up Vard 7 313??
Yes they are too small and have no welll deck/dock for XLUUV, USV or LCU. Updated enforcer with hanger, NS110 or Artisan, CAMM and 40mmMk4 is a better option. Albions are already fitted with CMS, Artisan and CIWS so only CAMM is an additional equipment.
My proposal was not to cut MRSS to replace it with Vard 7 313. This was my proposal.

My Proposal - The budget option:

1. Cancel T32 and MRSS programmes.

2. Upgrade T31s by adding additional weapons/sensors
- Move 57mm to B position. Add 127mm to A position. Retain both 40mm for both a port/starboard arc.
- Add 32 CAMM
- Add 24 Mk41 cells
- Add 8x NSM (Retain space for 16 canisters)
- Add 2150 and 2087.
- Add a deck crane and improve access between mission spaces.

Total cost for the 5 hulls: £800m

3. Build five compact LSV/HOPV/(Heavy OPV)in the 130m class. Something similar to a Vard Series 7 313 but with the beam narrowed to 22m and a top speed of 24knts.
https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-313.pdf

Fit a 57mm, 2x 40mm and Artisan with CAMM added via PODs if required.

The two spot flight deck, hanger space for 4 medium helicopters, stern ramp and 4 davits make these highly versatile and very capable.
Aim for a cost of £900m for the five OPVs.

4. Convert the Albions by adding hanger space for 2 medium helicopters and additional heavy lift UAVs. Add 57mm, 2x40mm and allocate space for CAMM via PODs. Complete comprehensive LIFEX and push OSDs back to 2050. Reactivate both Albions.
Total cost: £300m

5. Build two 200m LHDs optimised for Amphibious Assault and MALE Drones. Aim for a capacity of,
- 8 medium helicopters
- 12 MALE or heavy lift drones
- 2 LCU in a floodable dock
- 4 LCVP or CB90 via davits
- 40t crane plus ability to launch and recover mexeflotes.
- 650lm RORO
- Add 4x40mm, 24 CAMM and Artisan
- Top speed 24knts
- Range 10000 nmi
Total cost: £1.2bn

IMO this would give RN a massively more capable fleet for a total cost of around £3.2bn. That’s a saving of £1.7bn from the expected cost of the T32 and MRSS programmes.

The benefits would be clear:

Amphib and LSV capacity of,
- 12 LCUs
- 40 Medium helicopters
- 26 landing spots plus 2x 200m flight decks for MALE drones
- Over 4500lm of RORO
- Over 2500 PAX

The £1.7bn saved could build:

- Four additional T31s at £425m per hull.
- Four Ellida style MRSS/JLS to replace the Bays and Waves
- Two T26 at £850m per hull

This may be the budget option but IMO it’s a better option than current planning.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Opportunity for Babcock to supply a joint class of fast attack craft for Sweden and Ukraine?
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/nava ... s-in-flux/

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 01 Mar 2023, 09:28 Opportunity for Babcock to supply a joint class of fast attack craft for Sweden and Ukraine?
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/nava ... s-in-flux/
So if they’re looking for something larger than a corvette, why would it be an opportunity to supply something smaller than a corvette?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Would t be at all surprised if the sweds end up part of the Dane’s Thetis replacement program

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 01 Mar 2023, 08:59
Fr0sty125 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 21:42
wargame_insomniac wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 19:41 Had you lookd up Vard 7 313??
Yes they are too small and have no welll deck/dock for XLUUV, USV or LCU. Updated enforcer with hanger, NS110 or Artisan, CAMM and 40mmMk4 is a better option. Albions are already fitted with CMS, Artisan and CIWS so only CAMM is an additional equipment.
My proposal was not to cut MRSS to replace it with Vard 7 313. This was my proposal.

My Proposal - The budget option:

1. Cancel T32 and MRSS programmes.

2. Upgrade T31s by adding additional weapons/sensors
- Move 57mm to B position. Add 127mm to A position. Retain both 40mm for both a port/starboard arc.
- Add 32 CAMM
- Add 24 Mk41 cells
- Add 8x NSM (Retain space for 16 canisters)
- Add 2150 and 2087.
- Add a deck crane and improve access between mission spaces.

Total cost for the 5 hulls: £800m

3. Build five compact LSV/HOPV/(Heavy OPV)in the 130m class. Something similar to a Vard Series 7 313 but with the beam narrowed to 22m and a top speed of 24knts.
https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-313.pdf

Fit a 57mm, 2x 40mm and Artisan with CAMM added via PODs if required.

The two spot flight deck, hanger space for 4 medium helicopters, stern ramp and 4 davits make these highly versatile and very capable.
Aim for a cost of £900m for the five OPVs.

4. Convert the Albions by adding hanger space for 2 medium helicopters and additional heavy lift UAVs. Add 57mm, 2x40mm and allocate space for CAMM via PODs. Complete comprehensive LIFEX and push OSDs back to 2050. Reactivate both Albions.
Total cost: £300m

5. Build two 200m LHDs optimised for Amphibious Assault and MALE Drones. Aim for a capacity of,
- 8 medium helicopters
- 12 MALE or heavy lift drones
- 2 LCU in a floodable dock
- 4 LCVP or CB90 via davits
- 40t crane plus ability to launch and recover mexeflotes.
- 650lm RORO
- Add 4x40mm, 24 CAMM and Artisan
- Top speed 24knts
- Range 10000 nmi
Total cost: £1.2bn

IMO this would give RN a massively more capable fleet for a total cost of around £3.2bn. That’s a saving of £1.7bn from the expected cost of the T32 and MRSS programmes.

The benefits would be clear:

Amphib and LSV capacity of,
- 12 LCUs
- 40 Medium helicopters
- 26 landing spots plus 2x 200m flight decks for MALE drones
- Over 4500lm of RORO
- Over 2500 PAX

The £1.7bn saved could build:

- Four additional T31s at £425m per hull.
- Four Ellida style MRSS/JLS to replace the Bays and Waves
- Two T26 at £850m per hull

This may be the budget option but IMO it’s a better option than current planning.
The deployed capability of the commando helicopter fleet is 10 Merlin’s. If they need 4 on and a/c carrier for JPR that leaves 6. If you’re pretending that we have two carrier groups that leaves 2.

While LHDs would be a gd choice it was LHDs or carriers. The carrier will be used in the lha role or sold.

I’m really not sure why NSM is considered for fleet wide incorporating going fwd. even when the mbda missile arrives it will be expensive and in limited numbers there’s a case for both.

On type 31 no point fitting sonars if your only training operators for a handful of ships eg type 26.


the only changes I’d make to type 31 at present would be adding of nsm and a consideration for an additional 6 camm tubes. And I’d be ordering another 5.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me right now Type 31 should deploy with 24 CAMM , 12 x GSDB , Wildcat with 4 x Sea Venon or 20 x LMM or a mix plus it will be fitted with S2170 anit torpedo defence system and we should have 8 to 10 of them

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 16:09 I do understand UK need to think much of tier-1 level conflict.

But, it does NOT mean RN must invest on all aspects of assets; SSBN, CVTF, LRG, etc.

First of all, UK need to define the "primary enemy" or "primary theater". And then, RN must "shift" its resource to better handle these threats.
I think I would gently disagree here.

With the security picture worsening, more assets, manpower and consumables will be required. It is not just a case of reallocating a fixed level of funding from A to B to tackle the new threats. HMG will need to fund the response to any new threats as well as continue to meet our previous commitments around the world.

Clearly it won’t be a blank cheque but there will need to be substantially more funding spread right across the MoD.

Firstly, does RN need to grow in terms of hulls? Leaving the CASD, MCMVs and survey vessels to one side I would say, yes but not much. The priority must be to squeeze all the potential out of each vessel and maximise days at sea.

Does the RFA need to grow in terms of hulls. I suggest current numbers are enough but each vessel should not necessarily be replaced like for like. Overall hull numbers must not be allowed to drop any further.

The SSN numbers need to be increased to around 12 ASAP. A way needs to be found to achieve this. This will be very, very expensive. In all likelihood around £8bn to £10bn. A top priority.

The OPV numbers need to be increased to around 10 and this needs to happen within 5 years possibly by slotting in hulls between the T31 builds. Current planning has the T31s replacing the forward based RB2s so this should not cause an insurmountable capability issue whilst also maintaining the drumbeat at Rosyth.

The Amphib replacement programme should be pretty straightforward if the budget is in the region of £2.5bn. IMO MRSS is not the way forward. It was a cut in plain sight and belongs to a previous era.

IMO the most pressing issues are increasing SSN numbers and hopefully AUKUS will help in that regard plus RN needs to decide about ASW around the LSGs. Is it to be more T26s or more capable T31s? The idea that almost 40% of RNs escorts are to have no idea what is happening below the surface is frankly ludicrous especially when peer on peer conflict is now more like than at any time since the 1980s.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Why does there need to be substantially more funding? Uk defence spending is around 2-2.5% of gdp. Other than the US the rest of the G7 are below 2% Germany and Japan closer to 1% until this past year.

NATO indeed most western nations targets remains 2%. So why should we be going substantially beyond that?

If that means we need to prioritise then that’s what we need to do.

At the end of the day Russia has committed about 90% of its army to Ukraine and is at best sitting in stalemate. Even presently there is close to 300K highly trained troops protecting NATOs border and taken even an historic 3:1 ratio to attack a position Russia would need a million man army to do it.

The is a need to have a professional well trained component offerable to a nato force that should be perfectly doable with the amount we spend on defence. As well as having forces able to be provided to very targeted locations we have a strong interest in. An air land sea commitment of say 15K personnel to a nato mission with say x3 for training/ endurance /rotation ect should not be taxing an organisation of 150K regulars and nearly 40K reserve personnel.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 01 Mar 2023, 08:59
Fr0sty125 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 21:42
wargame_insomniac wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 19:41 Had you lookd up Vard 7 313??
Yes they are too small and have no welll deck/dock for XLUUV, USV or LCU. Updated enforcer with hanger, NS110 or Artisan, CAMM and 40mmMk4 is a better option. Albions are already fitted with CMS, Artisan and CIWS so only CAMM is an additional equipment.
My proposal was not to cut MRSS to replace it with Vard 7 313. This was my proposal.

My Proposal - The budget option:

1. Cancel T32 and MRSS programmes.

2. Upgrade T31s by adding additional weapons/sensors
- Move 57mm to B position. Add 127mm to A position. Retain both 40mm for both a port/starboard arc.
- Add 32 CAMM
- Add 24 Mk41 cells
- Add 8x NSM (Retain space for 16 canisters)
- Add 2150 and 2087.
- Add a deck crane and improve access between mission spaces.

Total cost for the 5 hulls: £800m

3. Build five compact LSV/HOPV/(Heavy OPV)in the 130m class. Something similar to a Vard Series 7 313 but with the beam narrowed to 22m and a top speed of 24knts.
https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-313.pdf

Fit a 57mm, 2x 40mm and Artisan with CAMM added via PODs if required.

The two spot flight deck, hanger space for 4 medium helicopters, stern ramp and 4 davits make these highly versatile and very capable.
Aim for a cost of £900m for the five OPVs.

4. Convert the Albions by adding hanger space for 2 medium helicopters and additional heavy lift UAVs. Add 57mm, 2x40mm and allocate space for CAMM via PODs. Complete comprehensive LIFEX and push OSDs back to 2050. Reactivate both Albions.
Total cost: £300m

5. Build two 200m LHDs optimised for Amphibious Assault and MALE Drones. Aim for a capacity of,
- 8 medium helicopters
- 12 MALE or heavy lift drones
- 2 LCU in a floodable dock
- 4 LCVP or CB90 via davits
- 40t crane plus ability to launch and recover mexeflotes.
- 650lm RORO
- Add 4x40mm, 24 CAMM and Artisan
- Top speed 24knts
- Range 10000 nmi
Total cost: £1.2bn

IMO this would give RN a massively more capable fleet for a total cost of around £3.2bn. That’s a saving of £1.7bn from the expected cost of the T32 and MRSS programmes.

The benefits would be clear:

Amphib and LSV capacity of,
- 12 LCUs
- 40 Medium helicopters
- 26 landing spots plus 2x 200m flight decks for MALE drones
- Over 4500lm of RORO
- Over 2500 PAX

The £1.7bn saved could build:

- Four additional T31s at £425m per hull.
- Four Ellida style MRSS/JLS to replace the Bays and Waves
- Two T26 at £850m per hull

This may be the budget option but IMO it’s a better option than current planning.
I presume that you mean Merlin HC4 for RM Commandos, rather than Merlin HM2 for ASW??

Re Sonar. how much would 4-5 sets of VDS cost, containerised if necessary?
I am assuming that 8*T26 will be mainly occupied by defending CSG / CASD and protecting GIUK Gap?
If so then what if LSG is operating without CSG - e.g. LSG is deploying a Company of RM Commandos east of Suez, and that LSG mainly protected by T31??

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 01 Mar 2023, 10:15 The deployed capability of the commando helicopter fleet is 10 Merlin’s. If they need 4 on and a/c carrier for JPR that leaves 6. If you’re pretending that we have two carrier groups that leaves 2.
Simple answer is to marinise the Chinooks and add auto folding rotors. It should of happened years ago.

Alternatively, why not marinise the Puma replacements?
While LHDs would be a gd choice it was LHDs or carriers. The carrier will be used in the lha role or sold.
Why? Absolutely no need to do that.
On type 31 no point fitting sonars if your only training operators for a handful of ships eg type 26.
RN simply cannot introduce a class of Frigates with no idea what is happening sub-surface. It’s cost cutting gone mad. What other leading navy in the world is introducing a class of Frigate lacking this most basic capability?
the only changes I’d make to type 31 at present would be adding of nsm and a consideration for an additional 6 camm tubes. And I’d be ordering another 5.
Effectively cancelling the T32 program?

Does RN really need 10 below average Frigates that cannot tackle sub-surface threats? Where is the rationale for this apart from cost cutting?

The cost of the T32 programme is likely to be somewhere around £2.5bn plus around £300m to replace the RB1s.

Why not make the most of the T31s and let a new class of Multi-Role OPVs concentrate on the off-board systems, SF requirements and HADR.

In simple terms the same amount of capital equals:
- one T26
- two fully optimised T31
- three patrol frigates
- four 130m OPVs

Are 10 below average Frigates really the priority?

Personally I think 8 fully optimised T31s and five 130m OPVs is a better option.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 03 Mar 2023, 12:02
SW1 wrote: 01 Mar 2023, 10:15 The deployed capability of the commando helicopter fleet is 10 Merlin’s. If they need 4 on and a/c carrier for JPR that leaves 6. If you’re pretending that we have two carrier groups that leaves 2.
Simple answer is to marinise the Chinooks and add auto folding rotors. It should of happened years ago.

Alternatively, why not marinise the Puma replacements?
While LHDs would be a gd choice it was LHDs or carriers. The carrier will be used in the lha role or sold.
Why? Absolutely no need to do that.
On type 31 no point fitting sonars if your only training operators for a handful of ships eg type 26.
RN simply cannot introduce a class of Frigates with no idea what is happening sub-surface. It’s cost cutting gone mad. What other leading navy in the world is introducing a class of Frigate lacking this most basic capability?
the only changes I’d make to type 31 at present would be adding of nsm and a consideration for an additional 6 camm tubes. And I’d be ordering another 5.
Effectively cancelling the T32 program?

Does RN really need 10 below average Frigates that cannot tackle sub-surface threats? Where is the rationale for this apart from cost cutting?

The cost of the T32 programme is likely to be somewhere around £2.5bn plus around £300m to replace the RB1s.

Why not make the most of the T31s and let a new class of Multi-Role OPVs concentrate on the off-board systems, SF requirements and HADR.

In simple terms the same amount of capital equals:
- one T26
- two fully optimised T31
- three patrol frigates
- four 130m OPVs

Are 10 below average Frigates really the priority?

Personally I think 8 fully optimised T31s and five 130m OPVs is a better option.
With regards to helicopters depends very much on what you’re needing them to do where and for how long. Strongly suspect they will be in and out rather than embarked for long durations, too few about for anything else. Chinooks have been on ships quite a lot as they are.

Th RN has the ability to form a single carrier group that’s what the carrier is for the aviation element of that group, no need to keep adding aviation ships with no aviation to put on them.


Well type 31 doesn’t have no idea it has some idea. Is it any different to the present situation if the RN is only training sufficient sonar operators to man the 8 type23/type 26 who’s operating the sonar on the new ships?

Well type 32 would be a type 31 batch 2 so yes cancelled if you like. RN requires ships with high endurance and the ability to embarks marine boarding teams helicopter and boarding boats with the ability to defend itself and have situational awareness not OPVs. An opv function around the Uk maybe an option but if it’s a couple of type 31 frigates instead so be it..

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: 03 Mar 2023, 13:49 Th RN has the ability to form a single carrier group..
With two carriers in it.

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: 03 Mar 2023, 13:49 Well type 31 doesn’t have no idea it has some idea.
That needed saying :D

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

What we need to remember is that type 31 will be fitted with the S2170 anti torpedo system and there for will have defence against sub surface threats

As said going forward I would like to see 8 type 31's and I would like to see them fitted with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 12 x GSDB's , S2170 ATS , 1 x Wildcat with Sea Venom or LMM

As for the Vard-7 313 there is a lot to like and 5 or 6 would be a good number but we would need to keep the cost down to 110 million with a fit of 1 x 40mm and 2 x 30mm , 3d radar

I would keep the RB2's this would allow for 4 T-31's each side of Suez and then 3 Vard-7 and 2 RB2's East of Suez and 2 Vard-7 and 3 RB'2 in the Atlantic

For me this coves all the needs across areas we need to be eyes on

When it comes to Helicopters I have said for donks that the Puma replacement needs to have a folding rotor to allow naval operations as needed

Tbenz
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 25 Feb 2017, 17:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tbenz »

With regards to SSTD/Sonar 2170, I believe that all the MOD has ordered is three Fit-To-Receive kits, effectively meaning that just three of the five Type 31 will be FFBNW.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Tbenz wrote: 03 Mar 2023, 14:34 With regards to SSTD/Sonar 2170, I believe that all the MOD has ordered is three Fit-To-Receive kits, effectively meaning that just three of the five Type 31 will be FFBNW.
Ah, yes, but those other two are FFBNW Fit-To-Receive kits...you see

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 »

dmereifield wrote: 03 Mar 2023, 15:09
Tbenz wrote: 03 Mar 2023, 14:34 With regards to SSTD/Sonar 2170, I believe that all the MOD has ordered is three Fit-To-Receive kits, effectively meaning that just three of the five Type 31 will be FFBNW.
Ah, yes, but those other two are FFBNW Fit-To-Receive kits...you see
Interesting, it is only 3.

By the way, to my understanding SSTD/Sonar 2170 is rotated fleet wide (including RFA). So, not like other FFBNWs, I think it will be fitted (and then taken off, and then fitted...).

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Tbenz wrote: 03 Mar 2023, 14:34 With regards to SSTD/Sonar 2170, I believe that all the MOD has ordered is three Fit-To-Receive kits, effectively meaning that just three of the five Type 31 will be FFBNW.
but we already have the 2017 system which can fitted when the ships need them as for the last 2 ships I am sure they will get the kits before they are finished but we need to remember that is some time off yet

Post Reply