Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

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?

Why? I do agree having a sonar on T31 is "nice to have", but do not think it is "cannot introduce".

There are a few examples of "frigate level vessels without ASW sonar":
- French navy (Floreal and original-LaFyaette classes)
- US Navy (LCS)
- German navy (Baden-Weurttemberg-class frigate)
- Italian (PPA light+ and light)
- Dutch Holland-class OPV

Sometimes we say them a frigate, sometimes not. And, RN calls T31 a GP frigate, and GP frigate has an aspect of Sloop.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT AGAINST adding hull sonar to T31. But I do think it has a limited effect. If someone says "can we introduce 57 mm ALaMo rounds by re-using the money prepared for hull sonar?", I will say "let's do it".

[SD67]

I'm going to say the unthinkable - I think the RN have broadly got the right approach, post T45

1) Specify a solidly engineered platform with plenty of growth potential
2) Get it built in baseline configuration. If short of cash go for 80% solutions on peripheral programs (like buying commercial vessels for MCM mother ships, cancelling T23 Lifex where it didn't make sense).
3) Get it into service and the bugs ironed out.
4) Deploy around the world - a high profile first voyage to the Pacific does wonders for retention and recruitment.
5) Define a spiral upgrade path to cover the next 10+ years (JSM, S100, UxVs etc)
6) Repeat

Frankly it's what was not done with Ajax, or Nimrod or SA80 for that matter.

The problem is at any point in the cycle you can take a snapshot and say "we're building these huge underarmed platforms we should swap x for y" or "we wnt have enough sailors to man Z". Reality is you cannot uparm something that does not exist and a shiny new platform with 21st century accomodation standards that is deploying to exotic countries will never have a problem getting crewed

[Poiuytrewq]

Re Sonar. how much would 4-5 sets of VDS cost, containerised if necessary?

The cost of the entire RN PODs program is, as of yet, unquantifiable.

I am assuming that 8*T26 will be mainly occupied by defending CSG / CASD and protecting GIUK Gap?

Yes, realistically the 8 T23ASW/T26 are going to be required for the CSG and protecting the CASD. It’s a tiny number of escorts for a navy with two 65,000t CVFs. There is absolutely no strength in depth or credible rate of attrition for such a small force.

Current planning is built around other nations providing escorts. Its unacceptable in the present security climate.

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??

Yes, it will be the T31/T32s that will escort the LRG/LSGs. For that reason alone the T31s will have to be upgraded if the T32 program is cancelled.

Personally I think current planning which was developed pre February 2022 isn’t relevant anymore.

Hence the need for a rethink in multiple areas.

[Repulse]

I think it’s clear that a LRG will not be operating anywhere remotely hot without being supported by a CSG.

Equipped properly the T31 could support this but being completely blind under water has its limitations.

[Poiuytrewq]

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.

I can’t agree here.

RN has the ability to operate two CSGs with the T45s and T23s as well as protect the CASD. HMG is just choosing not too because it won’t fund it. That’s includes the knuckle dragging on the F35b purchase.

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..

I don’t disagree here but my reasoning is different.

For the majority of maritime security tasks a Frigate is not required but an OPV such as an RB2 is not capable enough. As HMS Lancaster showed recently a Wildcat and two RHIBs were required.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... -arms-haul

The current OPVs are simply not good enough for even basic maritime security and anti-narcotic patrol due to lack of a hanger. Frigates are great for maritime security deployments but,

- a Mk8 is not required
- a hull mounted sonar is not required
- 8 Harpoon are not required
- 32 CAMM are not required
- an escort level of damage control is not required
- a crew allocation of 120+ is not required

In effect using Frigates for general maritime security and anti-narcotics patrols is too much and using OPVs such as the RB2s in not enough.

Also Frigates are extremely limited for an instant HADR response if a maritime security patrol turns to a serious humanitarian crisis response.

Personally I think a 130m OPV like the Vard7 313 ticks all the boxes for maritime security and anti-narcotics patrols as well as HADR deployments although I would like to see a UK version have a 22m beam and achieve 24knts.

The Vard has a hanger capable of embarking 4 medium helicopters. Lots of space for heavy lift UAVs for disaster response or a Camcopter plus a Wildcat. Also great for SF or FCF use if multiple helos need to be embarked.

642E8293-CE77-4273-BFAB-ECC0A1CE8C84.jpeg

Two CB90s/LCVPs and two11m RHIBs can be launched/recovered via davits. The deck crane has a SWL of 20t at 20m. Easily capable of deploying a XLUUV and various MCM off-board systems.

1FC61442-8D8A-4381-AD3B-598FACE98424.png

There is 475 lane-meters or 1,330m2 of total modular area on the vehicle deck plus another 740m2 of reconfigurable flexible mission space. It’s clear that this is a huge amount of space for a 130m class vessel. Especially when compared with the T31s LOA of 138m.

8CC4C00F-D849-4256-B257-027BA65C25AC.jpeg

66272724-1344-4143-B084-F19D92B556C9.png

The Vard also has a relatively shallow draft when compared with other vessels that would traditionally lead or have led a UK HADR response.

- Vard 7 313…..5.4m
- Tide Class…..10m
- Wave Class…..10m
- Argus…..8m
- Ocean…..6.5m
- Albion…..7m
- Bay Class…..5.5m
- Fort Victoria…..9.7m

The shallow draft and modest LOA of 130m is beneficial in small poorly maintained or hurricane damaged ports but unloading via mexeflote is also a viable alternative.

8C017D2C-813B-4B7A-AB73-2975953571B2.jpeg

The PCRS facility on Argus is a great capability but even a modest 130m OPV can have a useful medical facility. The Vard 7 313 has 5 operating theatres and a 17 bed ICU which together with the 740m2 of reconfigurable space for extra beds could be extremely useful in certain scenarios.

B82C0E6C-F9E5-496B-9A20-DD33E355D919.jpeg

The Vard is a great design for a multi-role OPV in the 130m class but I am sure it could be optimised further for a UK version.

IMO introducing a below average class of Frigates for simple maritime security and anti-narcotics patrols and diverting the small number of RFAs for humanitarian crisis response is actually a very expensive and inefficient way to achieve the required outcome. Then introducing another class of more capable hybrid Frigates to make up for the deficiencies of the under specified T31 defies any reasonable logic.

Hopefully this explains why IMO maximising the T31s and introducing a class of 130m OPVs is a better option.

[Fr0sty125]

Type 31 should be using RUAV and VTOL MALE UAV for ASW not hull or towed sonar.

[Poiuytrewq]

Why? I do agree having a sonar on T31 is "nice to have", but do not think it is "cannot introduce".

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT AGAINST adding hull sonar to T31. But I do think it has a limited effect. If someone says "can we introduce 57 mm ALaMo rounds by re-using the money prepared for hull sonar?", I will say "let's do it".

As Fr0sty125 eludes to there are alternatives to a hull mounted sonar so its more important to focus on the T31 being able to find and track sub surface targets reliably and consistently. If RN come up with a better solution than a hull mounted sonar then that’s great.

IMO surface and sub surface suicide drones are going to become a major issue going forward. The plausible deniability of such systems will enhance their attraction to unfriendly adversaries and greatly increase the chance of them being deployed against RN vessels.

Armed XLUUVs are also probably less than a decade away. This will be relatively cheap technology in comparison to SSNs and SSKs so it is likely to proliferate rapidly in much the same as anti-ship missiles.

With all these current and emerging threats it is unthinkable that RN would introduce a class of Frigates that cannot safely counter such threats.

[Repulse]

Th RN has the ability to form a single carrier group..

With two carriers in it.

Correct, or put it another way, the ability to form a carrier group 100% of the time, and once the 3 FSS are delivered the ability to deploy and sustain it globally. No other navy, except the USN and perhaps China, will be able to do this.

I’d also argue that it gives the ability, in extremes, to form a CSG and an enforced LRG. As is pointed out by SW1, helicopters do not need to be based on amphibious ships when they are operating as a group, I’m fine with a CVF operating OTH with LPDs operating closer to shore (supporting helicopters ops for short periods).

One thing that should be revised is the dream of two LRGs, it’s not possible within the current asset constraints, better to focus on a 100% available UK based capable LRG which is globally deployable, coupled with a larger number of smaller / lower level globally forward based ships integrated with the Overseas Patrol force.

[Repulse]

In effect using Frigates for general maritime security and anti-narcotics patrols is too much and using OPVs such as the RB2s in not enough.

Also Frigates are extremely limited for an instant HADR response if a maritime security patrol turns to a serious humanitarian crisis response.

Personally I think a 130m OPV like the Vard7 313 ticks all the boxes for maritime security and anti-narcotics patrols as well as HADR deployments

I agree that for medium/high threat maritime security tasks OPVs should not be used. But currently the RN only has one of them, Kipion. There is the potential given recent events that the Falklands also warms up, so perhaps that’s two. A force of 5 B2s and 2 T31s would be sufficient as a core of the Overseas Patrol Squadron, for the requirement IMO. (Ultimately this may be better served by a common Sloop design, but I’ll put that aside for now).

If the RN starts to face the reality that it can only afford a single “always ready” UK based LRG, then the need becomes clear.

To support a 100% available, UK based globally deployable CSG and a similarly a LRG, then for me this requires 2 CVFs, 2-3 LPDs, 6 T45s, 6 T26s, 6 (equipped for ASW) T31s, 6 Tankers and 3 FSSs.

This would leave 2 T26s for FRE, NATO standing groups and CASD which feels too few, so I would argue for 2 more.

By having a single LRG, does raise the question on HADR and SF support. I do like a design like the Vard7 313 so if money could be afforded, I’d have two, one “west” and one “east”.

Putting aside MCM, Survey, Ice Patrol and UK EEZ patrol, this would give a fantasy surface fleet of:

- 2 CVFs
- 2-3 LPDs
- 6 T45s
- 10 T26s
- 8 T31s (2 lite + 6 fully kitted)
- 5 B2 OPVs
- 2 Vard7 313s (or equivalent)
- 6 Tankers (4 Tide + 2 Waves)
- 3 FSS

If Babcock focused on a pipeline of T31s, future LPDs and “Vard7s” this could provide a sustainable build drumbeat. The OPVs/LSVs could and should be built in other yards, like Appledore, to expand strategical depth in ship building.

Ok, this requires increased funding, but relatively modest and it builds a coherent and capable force suitable for a medium sized power with global interests.

[SW1]

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.

I can’t agree here.

RN has the ability to operate two CSGs with the T45s and T23s as well as protect the CASD. HMG is just choosing not too because it won’t fund it. That’s includes the knuckle dragging on the F35b purchase.

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..

I don’t disagree here but my reasoning is different.

For the majority of maritime security tasks a Frigate is not required but an OPV such as an RB2 is not capable enough. As HMS Lancaster showed recently a Wildcat and two RHIBs were required.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... -arms-haul

The current OPVs are simply not good enough for even basic maritime security and anti-narcotic patrol due to lack of a hanger. Frigates are great for maritime security deployments but,

- a Mk8 is not required
- a hull mounted sonar is not required
- 8 Harpoon are not required
- 32 CAMM are not required
- an escort level of damage control is not required
- a crew allocation of 120+ is not required

In effect using Frigates for general maritime security and anti-narcotics patrols is too much and using OPVs such as the RB2s in not enough.

Also Frigates are extremely limited for an instant HADR response if a maritime security patrol turns to a serious humanitarian crisis response.

Personally I think a 130m OPV like the Vard7 313 ticks all the boxes for maritime security and anti-narcotics patrols as well as HADR deployments although I would like to see a UK version have a 22m beam and achieve 24knts.

The Vard has a hanger capable of embarking 4 medium helicopters. Lots of space for heavy lift UAVs for disaster response or a Camcopter plus a Wildcat. Also great for SF or FCF use if multiple helos need to be embarked. 642E8293-CE77-4273-BFAB-ECC0A1CE8C84.jpeg

Two CB90s/LCVPs and two11m RHIBs can be launched/recovered via davits. The deck crane has a SWL of 20t at 20m. Easily capable of deploying a XLUUV and various MCM off-board systems.
1FC61442-8D8A-4381-AD3B-598FACE98424.png
There is 475 lane-meters or 1,330m2 of total modular area on the vehicle deck plus another 740m2 of reconfigurable flexible mission space. It’s clear that this is a huge amount of space for a 130m class vessel. Especially when compared with the T31s LOA of 138m.8CC4C00F-D849-4256-B257-027BA65C25AC.jpeg66272724-1344-4143-B084-F19D92B556C9.png
The Vard also has a relatively shallow draft when compared with other vessels that would traditionally lead or have led a UK HADR response.

- Vard 7 313…..5.4m
- Tide Class…..10m
- Wave Class…..10m
- Argus…..8m
- Ocean…..6.5m
- Albion…..7m
- Bay Class…..5.5m
- Fort Victoria…..9.7m

The shallow draft and modest LOA of 130m is beneficial in small poorly maintained or hurricane damaged ports but unloading via mexeflote is also a viable alternative.8C017D2C-813B-4B7A-AB73-2975953571B2.jpeg
The PCRS facility on Argus is a great capability but even a modest 130m OPV can have a useful medical facility. The Vard 7 313 has 5 operating theatres and a 17 bed ICU which together with the 740m2 of reconfigurable space for extra beds could be extremely useful in certain scenarios.B82C0E6C-F9E5-496B-9A20-DD33E355D919.jpeg
The Vard is a great design for a multi-role OPV in the 130m class but I am sure it could be optimised further for a UK version.

IMO introducing a below average class of Frigates for simple maritime security and anti-narcotics patrols and diverting the small number of RFAs for humanitarian crisis response is actually a very expensive and inefficient way to achieve the required outcome. Then introducing another class of more capable hybrid Frigates to make up for the deficiencies of the under specified T31 defies any reasonable logic.

Hopefully this explains why IMO maximising the T31s and introducing a class of 130m OPVs is a better option.

The RN has a single airgroup and unless they are planning a significant increase in the size of the merlin fleet or it’s successor then it will remain a struggle to maintain even that single carrier group. The decisions in 00s were diabolical in relation to sizing and scoping these ships.

The ship you quote is a bay/lpd replacement. Not adverse to it I mentioned many years ago that type 31 was what type 26 should have been and the bay class was what type31 should have been. It’s not where we are. The need for escort in the maritime security task is more important than the HADR one. As we have seen the proliferation of precision munitions and the use there off by irregular or state back groups requires vessels conducting these operations to have robust defensive capabilities which is why it can’t be an opv.

[Tempest414]

When talking about using the 2nd Carrier as a LHA then we have plenty of options we could deploy it with a airwing of

8 x F-35b
8 x Chinook
6 x Merlin HC4
8 x Apache
6 x Wildcat

As for the escorts right now for me if we had 6 type 45 , 8 x type 26 and 10 type 31's plus the 5 RB2's and then replaced the 3 RB1's with 4 Vard-7 313 the RN would have pulled off a Blinder

[donald_of_tokyo]

Why? I do agree having a sonar on T31 is "nice to have", but do not think it is "cannot introduce".

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT AGAINST adding hull sonar to T31. But I do think it has a limited effect. If someone says "can we introduce 57 mm ALaMo rounds by re-using the money prepared for hull sonar?", I will say "let's do it".

As Fr0sty125 eludes to there are alternatives to a hull mounted sonar so its more important to focus on the T31 being able to find and track sub surface targets reliably and consistently. If RN come up with a better solution than a hull mounted sonar then that’s great.

IMO surface and sub surface suicide drones are going to become a major issue going forward. The plausible deniability of such systems will enhance their attraction to unfriendly adversaries and greatly increase the chance of them being deployed against RN vessels.

Armed XLUUVs are also probably less than a decade away. This will be relatively cheap technology in comparison to SSNs and SSKs so it is likely to proliferate rapidly in much the same as anti-ship missiles.

With all these current and emerging threats it is unthinkable that RN would introduce a class of Frigates that cannot safely counter such threats.

Thanks. Agree overall. My opinion has 3 points.

1: I take ASW threat much more serious than many here, and hence NOT opting for adding a hull sonar to T31. I am negative to "sending LRG without CSG support against nations who can afford expensive AIP SSKs". When LRG is alone, it must be a theater without SSK threat. Not a big problem, because not so many nations can operate expensive SSK.

2: When thinking seriously about SSK, adding a hull sonar to a GP frigate or even CAPTAS-4 is not in the top of wish lists.
- UK operates only nine P-8As. This must be increased.
- And/or, UK must introduce SeaGuadian ASW-UAVs to supplement the small number of P-8As.
- RN is investing a lot on USV-based MCM. Adding ASW-sonar kits to them as yet another tasks will be a big boost in ASW capability.
P-8A, SeaGuadian UAV, ASW-USV, all of them is much more "serious" and effective for ASW than hull sonar or even CAPTAS-4CI equipped T31. This is mainly because P-8A numbers are so small. If there be 20 P-8As, I will happily agree to adding ASW sonar to T31.

3: Yes, UUV-drone era is coming. SSK (with AIP) is very expensive. But, UUV-drones are more cheaper. UK must be prepared against this threat. (will put this in the next comment).

[Repulse]

As we have seen the proliferation of precision munitions and the use there off by irregular or state back groups requires vessels conducting these operations to have robust defensive capabilities which is why it can’t be an opv.

Yes, but let’s not over do it either. It again goes to the risk and threat assessment. Currently, there is only one region where this is a real threat and that’s around the Red Sea (Yemen) and Gulf (though still can’t see Iran actually doing it). Here we currently have a frigate and so it will continue.

Everywhere else is currently low threat, so why send an expensive frigate which costs four times to build and four times to operate to do a task that an OPV can do. And if you are concerned that there is a small chance that this may happen unexpectedly, then add a 40 or 57mm gun to the B2 Rivers to give it a degree of AAW protection - the radar is more than capable and the design has damage control far beyond a normal OPV.

[Timmymagic]

Yes, but let’s not over do it either. It again goes to the risk and threat assessment. Currently, there is only one region where this is a real threat and that’s around the Red Sea (Yemen) and Gulf (though still can’t see Iran actually doing it). Here we currently have a frigate and so it will continue.

Isn't that also an area where the mine threat is at its highest though?

Hull mounted sonar are rather useful for mine detection and avoidance...if we're going to be using them around the Gulf its a rather silly capability to miss....let alone the ASW element, particularly with UUV's proliferating or even semi-submersible drug running/smuggling vessels...

[Repulse]

Yes, but let’s not over do it either. It again goes to the risk and threat assessment. Currently, there is only one region where this is a real threat and that’s around the Red Sea (Yemen) and Gulf (though still can’t see Iran actually doing it). Here we currently have a frigate and so it will continue.

Isn't that also an area where the mine threat is at its highest though?

Hull mounted sonar are rather useful for mine detection and avoidance...if we're going to be using them around the Gulf its a rather silly capability to miss....let alone the ASW element, particularly with UUV's proliferating or even semi-submersible drug running/smuggling vessels...

Absolutely, my view on the T31 is that all should have at-least the same level of underwater protection as the T45, but those acting as escorts to the CSG/LRG should also be TAS capable.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Fight against UUV/XLUUVs. My analysis (although nothing special).

1: How to detect these UUVs need active sonar (they are very quiet). They are small. Their size is not much different from fishes (including sharks) and dolphins (and small whales). So, higher frequency might be needed. Movement analysis will be also required, to distinguish UUVs from fishes.

2: As all drones tactics are, "soft-kill" is the main tactics. On this part, I don't have good view. Any suggestion?

3: "Hard kill" tactics against small drones and large drones will surely differ.

Against large drones, there is a "sonobuoy-sized torpedo", Black Scorpion is one example. SeaGuadian UAV may be able to launch it.
127mm-diameter, 1.1m long, 11 kg total weight. "Top speed in excess of 12 knots and a 2.8 kg PBX-type explosive omni-directional charge...".
This will not sink SSKs, but it will do sink XLUUVs.
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/leonardos-bl ... -customers

Overall I think USVs and/or UUVs to counter UUV/XLUUVs will be a good option. "Mine avoidance sonar" on some new frigates may also be a good option. They are high frequency and relatively cheap and small. For example, JMSDF FFM Mogami-class has it.

But, I understand it is NOT YET established. No need to hurry.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...
Personally I think a 130m OPV like the Vard7 313 ticks all the boxes for maritime security and anti-narcotics patrols as well as HADR deployments although I would like to see a UK version have a 22m beam and achieve 24knts.

The Vard has a hanger capable of embarking 4 medium helicopters. Lots of space for heavy lift UAVs for disaster response or a Camcopter plus a Wildcat. Also great for SF or FCF use if multiple helos need to be embarked. 642E8293-CE77-4273-BFAB-ECC0A1CE8C84.jpeg

Two CB90s/LCVPs and two11m RHIBs can be launched/recovered via davits. The deck crane has a SWL of 20t at 20m. Easily capable of deploying a XLUUV and various MCM off-board systems.
1FC61442-8D8A-4381-AD3B-598FACE98424.png
There is 475 lane-meters or 1,330m2 of total modular area on the vehicle deck plus another 740m2 of reconfigurable flexible mission space. It’s clear that this is a huge amount of space for a 130m class vessel. Especially when compared with the T31s LOA of 138m.8CC4C00F-D849-4256-B257-027BA65C25AC.jpeg66272724-1344-4143-B084-F19D92B556C9.png
The Vard also has a relatively shallow draft when compared with other vessels that would traditionally lead or have led a UK HADR response....

RNZN MRV Canterbury is exactly the ship (although her top speed is 20knots).
She has "two helicopter spots and hangar storage for four helicopters", 2 LCMs, 2 RHIBs.

Displacement 9,000 tonnes
Beam 23.4 metres, Draught 5.4 metres, Length 131 metres, Speed 20 knots
Range 6,000+ nautical miles at 18 knots


https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/nzdf/our-equipm ... anterbury/

[Poiuytrewq]

RNZN MRV Canterbury is exactly the ship (although her top speed is 20knots).
She has "two helicopter spots and hangar storage for four helicopters", 2 LCMs, 2 RHIBs.
Displacement 9,000 tonnes
Beam 23.4 metres, Draught 5.4 metres, Length 131 metres, Speed 20 knots
Range 6,000+ nautical miles at 18 knots

Thanks.

HMNZS Canterbury is similar but not exactly the same. Actually I think the centre of gravity of Canterbury is is too high, which isn’t helped by the double deck cranes and landing craft. The RHIBs are two low to the waterline and the superstructure is about 2 decks too high.

IMO the Vard design addresses most of these flaws but a small stretch of around 8m in the bow to provide a LOA of 138m together a beam around 22m should really improve sea keeping in high sea states. I would also upgrade the propulsion to 2x 8000kw diesels and aim for 24knts, a range of 10,000nm and an endurance of 40 days.

It’s a massive amount of capability for a very modest cost both in terms of procurement and operation.

[Timmymagic]

3: "Hard kill" tactics against small drones and large drones will surely differ.

Against large drones, there is a "sonobuoy-sized torpedo", Black Scorpion is one example. SeaGuadian UAV may be able to launch it.
127mm-diameter, 1.1m long, 11 kg total weight. "Top speed in excess of 12 knots and a 2.8 kg PBX-type explosive omni-directional charge...".
This will not sink SSKs, but it will do sink XLUUVs.

For UUV's the simplest solution is the return of the depth charge (although the RN still has Mk.11's in stock). Simple, cheap, effective and available to be purchased in numbers. UUV's don't have the speed or size to evade or survive.

[Poiuytrewq]

HMNZS Canterbury is similar but not exactly the same. Actually I think the centre of gravity of Canterbury is is too high, which isn’t helped by the double deck cranes and landing craft. The RHIBs are two low to the waterline and the superstructure is about 2 decks too high.

Canterbury has had stability issues. Not a pleasent ship to be in in a high sea state by all accounts.

[donald_of_tokyo]

HMNZS Canterbury is similar but not exactly the same.

Of course. If Vard7 313 as a dedicated new design (surely expensive), is not better than HMNZS Canterbury which is a modified ferry (cheap), it will be a big problem.

It’s a massive amount of capability for a very modest cost both in terms of procurement and operation.

The point of looking at HMNZS Canterbury is the "usefulness" of these kind of ships. HMNZS Canterbury is mainly used as military sea-lift ship = mini Bay-LSD (no well dock), and NOT as a patrol ship. (HMNZS Canterbury was originally considered to be a sea-lift ship and training ship, as well as patrol).

- Is this kind of ship really good as a patrol asset? Or shall it be considered mainly as replacements for RFA Argus and Bays?
- To be used as a patrol assets, what is the shortfall of HMNZS Canterbury, and how the Vard7 313 can mitigate it?
- Compared to River B2 OPV (or RNZN Otago-class OPV), surely these ship will need higher fuel cost, provide less maneuverability, but greatly enhanced capability. What is the optimal capability-operationcost tradeoff? Can RN learn something from HMNZS Canterbury? For example, if the stability issues are solved (= in calm weather season), HMNZS Canterbury is a good patrol asset?

This is the reason I mentioned about HMNZS Canterbury.

[Poiuytrewq]

Thanks.

Your option is clearly not in line with current planning (single LRG) but current planning is pretty fluid at the moment with uncertainty over the T32 and MRSS programs, hopefully the refreshed IR provides a clear direction of travel.

The reason I think RN will have to move towards two CSGs is that gradually the US will continue to drift east and Europe will need to look after its own backyard more and more. If the IR could do one thing for RN (apart from more SSNs) then committing to 80 F35b and transferring them all to the Fleet Air Arm would be my top priority. Perhaps it’s more realistic to expect USMC F35s to bulk up the numbers for the foreseeable but if project Tempest is successful the RAF will lose interest in the F35b rapidly IMO.

Regardless of all the fun and games in the North Atlantic and the high north the UK will still have to bolster its relations with African nations primarily with aid, finance and HADR, provide anti-narcotics and HADR patrols in the Indian ocean and the Caribbean as well support allied nation in the Asia Pacific plus maintain Kipion and protect the Falklands. If the UK is accepted into the CPTPP then our presence and involvement in the region will continue to increase and the other members of the CPTPP will expect the UKs physical presence in the Asia Pacific to be maintained and expanded.

That’s a lot of commitments for such a modest Navy and HMG need to get real and understand that such a foreign policy requires more resources. To a certain extent a logical re-organisation could be more important than a lot of extra money.

Something like this,

1. Ensure one CSG is available at all times with a clear policy that two CSGs can be formed if absolutely necessary in extreme circumstances. Base all CVFs, T26s, T45s, Tides and FSS in the U.K.

2. Amalgamate the T31 and T32 programmes, build 8 and kit them out to a standard commensurate to the T23 GPs they are replacing.

3. Form two distinct LRGs, one based in the U.K. with the second forward based in Al Duqm in Oman.

Form LRG(N) around Argus, 1x Albion, 1x Bay, 1xTide.

Form LRG(S) around 1x converted Bay, 1x Albion, 1x Bay and 2x Waves.

Base four T31s in the U.K. and forward base four T31s in Al Duqm in Oman.

The converted Bay should have a 1000m2 hanger fitted to allow 6 Merlin sized helos to be embarked.

4. Decommission the RB1s and replace in the UK EEZ with three RB2s plus forward base one RB2 in Singapore and one in the Falklands. Replace the RB1s with 5x Vard 7 313 type OPVs for a cost of around £900m funded by reducing the T31/T32 program from 10 hulls to 8. Forward base one Vard OPV in the Caribbean, Gibraltar, Oman and Singapore. Retain the 5th hull in refit/reserve or utilise in the gulf for MCM if required. Maximise medical facilities onboard and use for general maritime security, anti-narcotics and HADR in low threat environments.

The Bay conversion and reactivating the second Albion would be an additional cost together with an increase of manpower but it would certainly result in a Royal Navy fit for the 21st century.

[donald_of_tokyo]

For UUV's the simplest solution is the return of the depth charge (although the RN still has Mk.11's in stock). Simple, cheap, effective and available to be purchased in numbers. UUV's don't have the speed or size to evade or survive.

Not sure. If killing USVs by shock is aimed, how powerful your depths charges will needed to be? "Shock tolerant" drones are technically feasible (because it is small and area exposed to shock is not large). If 500 kg of powder is needed, how can you deliver it?

If we want to physically destroy the UUVs, depth information is needed for depth charges, I guess? How can we get it?

Not saying depth charge is bad. But, there will be many many things to consider/trial here. Mini torpedo (= self destructive UUV drones) might also be a good candidate, I guess.

[SW1]

As we have seen the proliferation of precision munitions and the use there off by irregular or state back groups requires vessels conducting these operations to have robust defensive capabilities which is why it can’t be an opv.

Yes, but let’s not over do it either. It again goes to the risk and threat assessment. Currently, there is only one region where this is a real threat and that’s around the Red Sea (Yemen) and Gulf (though still can’t see Iran actually doing it). Here we currently have a frigate and so it will continue.

Everywhere else is currently low threat, so why send an expensive frigate which costs four times to build and four times to operate to do a task that an OPV can do. And if you are concerned that there is a small chance that this may happen unexpectedly, then add a 40 or 57mm gun to the B2 Rivers to give it a degree of AAW protection - the radar is more than capable and the design has damage control far beyond a normal OPV.

So the threat from China in the Asia pacific is lower than the threat in the Arabian Sea? The threat of Chinese or Russian irregular forces in the west of Africa is low? It’s isn’t just about the weapons systems but the resilience of the platform itself. The rivers are just a normal opv if they were more along the lines of the Holland class opv we could have a discussion but they aren’t.

If the threat is low then in a limited budget world we need to discuss the point of being there in the first place.

[SW1]

As for the RN “roles”.

Simply 3 locations

1. Ensuring Russian or whoever else stays out of uk waters and the North Sea. Ensuring the Baltic is free of russian aggression and their northern fleet doesn’t get out of the Norwegian Sea.

2. Along east Africa (primary focus supt to Kenya) up to the Arabian Sea (focus Oman) and Red Sea. Reason for this main trade route into Europe, counter piracy, counter terrorism and it is the primary narcotics and people trafficking from Asia into Africa and up into Europe.

3. West Africa (principal focus Gulf of Guinea, in particular Nigeria and Serra leone), south Atlantic and the Caribbean (uk crown dependencies).
Reason for this general state deterrence to uk territory, counter piracy, counter terrorism both in the Caribbean and west Africa, and as this is the main narcotics and trafficking route from the southern carribean and South American into Africa and up into Europe.

therefore the uk combat fleet covers area 1

A fwd detachment of type 31, a commando company and tanker in Diego Garcia to cover area 2

A fwd detachment of type 31, a commando company and tanker in Gibraltar to cover area 3

Reason as I’ve said before is they are sovereign uk locations with full support structures available and offers most flexible locations to cover contingencies. This would then be tied in with other army and air force units and wider government investments engagement to further UK trade, energy security and to ensure these countries are not swayed but Russia or in particular Chinese promises.