Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Caribbean wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 16:01 The RN has also stated that they will act as escorts for the LSG -so not just flag waving & maritime constabulary.
Exactly and adding NSM and Mk41s is simply not necessary for a lowest common denominator patrol Frigate that the T31 was originally designed to be unless it’s role is changing. Ultimately the T32s are supposed to be the LRG escorts but they are 10 years, 3 general elections and £2.5bn away.

RN is adapting the T31 (as predicted by many) and it is gradually turning into a GP Frigate with similar capabilities as the T23 GP that are being replaced.

As the T31 becomes more complicated and expensive both to procure and operate it makes complete sense to operate other cheaper and simpler vessels in the flag waving and maritime security roles in low threat areas.

RN has two CVFs and two LRGs to escort as well as the CASD to protect. Thirteen Frigates is not even enough to do that properly without adding in distractions such as anti-narcotics and anti-piracy patrols.

With the RB1s nearing decommissioning it’s time to introduce a new class of low cost global patrol vessels to allow the escorts to concentrate on what they do best.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 12:50 For me if we could get to a place where we had 4 T-31's and 4 RB2's each side of Suez and have both classes 1.5 Manned and push type 31 for 240 days at sea and the RB2's to 300 days this could mean we could be looking at have a type 31 at sea for just short of 300 days a year in the Gulf , Indian Ocean and Pacific at the same time and the RB2's at sea for 600 days a year in the Indian Ocean and Pacific
I agree with the 2x 4/4 split in principle but there are much better options than the RB2s in the general patrol role IMO.

It’s all budget dependent but if built most efficiently the difference between five 90m RB2s and five 111m RB3s is likely to be less than the cost of one hull if the weapons and sensors were identical. In effect five RB2s or four 111m RB3s for the same amount. A huge gain for a tiny investment. However I would chose a different design with even more capability for a similar cost.

IMO forward basing RB2s in Gibraltar and the Falklands makes complete sense but other areas less so. The Caribbean for example needs a permanent/year around forward based vessel but not a Frigate or a RB2 or a Bay.

Something like this:

- A large 140m+ vessel built to commercial standards with a large flight deck and hanger suitable for multiple helos and heavy lift UAVs.

-It needs a large RORO for extensive HADR equipment, provisions and refrigerated containers.

-It needs extensive medical facilities and comfortable accommodation for crew/flight plus at least 150 additional berths.

- It needs a 30t crane plus side and stern ramps for unloading plus the ability to embark and deploy mexeflotes. Two davits for 15m craft plus multiple RHIBs.

-It does not need any complicated weapons or sensors. It does not need a floodable well dock or any LCU capability.

It need cost no more than an OPV and could easily be converted from a commercial vessel. This would be vastly cheaper than using a combination of Frigates, OPVs and large Amphibs as RN has done in recent years. Money saved, capability enhanced, outcomes improved. Great.

Two additional vessels with similar specifications would work equally well for East and West Africa. Much more useful than a 90m OPV and again no complicated and expensive weapons and sensors required. This would provide a solid HADR and maritime security presence with an additional SF/FCF capability permanently available in a very unstable part of the world. That is what meaningful defence and humanitarian engagement looks like rather than flag waving and cocktail parties IMO.

By solving the East/West Africa and Caribbean HADR and maritime security deployments it would enable LRG(N) to concentrate on the High North, Baltic etc and LRG(S) to concentrate on the Gulf, Indian Ocean and the Asia Pacific.

It would also reduce the need for the T32 and MRSS programmes and allow the Amphib fleet to be replaced with LHDs and/or LPHs fully optimised for LRG developments.

Perhaps a good example of spending the money better rather than just spending more money.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 16:15
Caribbean wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 16:01 The RN has also stated that they will act as escorts for the LSG -so not just flag waving & maritime constabulary.
It was also stated by the last Sea Lord that they would be sent into harms way
Which could mean anything from taking on pirates in fast boats to taking on the Chinese Navy. I suspect strongly the former
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Ron5
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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: 12 Mar 2023, 17:21
Tempest414 wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 12:50 For me if we could get to a place where we had 4 T-31's and 4 RB2's each side of Suez and have both classes 1.5 Manned and push type 31 for 240 days at sea and the RB2's to 300 days this could mean we could be looking at have a type 31 at sea for just short of 300 days a year in the Gulf , Indian Ocean and Pacific at the same time and the RB2's at sea for 600 days a year in the Indian Ocean and Pacific
I agree with the 2x 4/4 split in principle but there are much better options than the RB2s in the general patrol role IMO.

It’s all budget dependent but if built most efficiently the difference between five 90m RB2s and five 111m RB3s is likely to be less than the cost of one hull if the weapons and sensors were identical. In effect five RB2s or four 111m RB3s for the same amount. A huge gain for a tiny investment. However I would chose a different design with even more capability for a similar cost.

IMO forward basing RB2s in Gibraltar and the Falklands makes complete sense but other areas less so. The Caribbean for example needs a permanent/year around forward based vessel but not a Frigate or a RB2 or a Bay.

Something like this:

- A large 140m+ vessel built to commercial standards with a large flight deck and hanger suitable for multiple helos and heavy lift UAVs.

-It needs a large RORO for extensive HADR equipment, provisions and refrigerated containers.

-It needs extensive medical facilities and comfortable accommodation for crew/flight plus at least 150 additional berths.

- It needs a 30t crane plus side and stern ramps for unloading plus the ability to embark and deploy mexeflotes. Two davits for 15m craft plus multiple RHIBs.

-It does not need any complicated weapons or sensors. It does not need a floodable well dock or any LCU capability.

It need cost no more than an OPV and could easily be converted from a commercial vessel. This would be vastly cheaper than using a combination of Frigates, OPVs and large Amphibs as RN has done in recent years. Money saved, capability enhanced, outcomes improved. Great.

Two additional vessels with similar specifications would work equally well for East and West Africa. Much more useful than a 90m OPV and again no complicated and expensive weapons and sensors required. This would provide a solid HADR and maritime security presence with an additional SF/FCF capability permanently available in a very unstable part of the world. That is what meaningful defence and humanitarian engagement looks like rather than flag waving and cocktail parties IMO.

By solving the East/West Africa and Caribbean HADR and maritime security deployments it would enable LRG(N) to concentrate on the High North, Baltic etc and LRG(S) to concentrate on the Gulf, Indian Ocean and the Asia Pacific.

It would also reduce the need for the T32 and MRSS programmes and allow the Amphib fleet to be replaced with LHDs and/or LPHs fully optimised for LRG developments.

Perhaps a good example of spending the money better rather than just spending more money.
Without going too far into the amphibs, by my rough reckoning, Argus is approx 35 years old, 2*Albions are approx 20 years old and 3*Bays are approx 17 years old. So we are left with the question - what ships were the supposedly 6*MRSS due to replace and/or augment??

That answer will depend whether RN could afford to divert any of the MRSS money to build the 140m Support Vessels that you proposed. If RN focusses on replacing the previous Ocean and the ageing Argus with couple of ships emphaszing helicopter operations and hangar capacity, and assuming that the 3*Bays can serve another decade providing follow on logistics to initial landing, then maybe we can use some of the MRSS funds to build the 3 Support Vessels you have suggested. These Support Vessels would need to have sifficient armanent to fend off armed pirates that requent some areas of the African coasts (e.g. 1*40mm, couple of 20mm or 12.7mm etc).

Still think that for both home and BOTS waters in Carribean & mid-Atlantic, we need some cheaper OPV for fishery protection and basic ISR patrols. So 6-8 smaller OPV, cheaper and simpler than RB2's, but large enough to have good seakeeping.

So I don't think just one ship class will allone solve all RN needs. It maybe that RN will need two or three classes of ships to fill those lower priority roles, leaving it's Warfighting Escorts to focus on the higher priority high-intensity missions.

It would also do UK no harm in terms of shipbuilding exports if, as well as a couple of Frigate designs, that we had two or three smaller, cheaper ship designs that would suit the low intensity missions that most smaller Navies worldwide would most commonly face. That would certainly help keep Rosyth and (for the smaller OPV) Appledore busy.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 19:49
Without going too far into the amphibs, by my rough reckoning, Argus is approx 35 years old, 2*Albions are approx 20 years old and 3*Bays are approx 17 years old. So we are left with the question - what ships were the supposedly 6*MRSS due to replace and/or augment??
Firstly, I don’t think a clean sheet MRSS vessel can be built in the U.K. for less than £400m. That’s a total program cost of around £2.5bn. It’s a lot of money and perhaps it can be better spent.

Secondly, why six MRSS? The distributed assets approach coming together to form a LRG makes complete sense but depending on what form a MRSS takes it’s also a massive capability cut. A mixture Of LPH,LPD and LSD looks to be much better balanced.

Thirdly, if the East/West Africa and Caribbean patrol areas are covered by cheap but highly capable patrol vessels built to commercial standards and operated by the RFA then what is RN going to do with SIX MRSS? It wouldn’t be a bad outcome but I think RN could achieve much more for the same amount of cash.

Personally I would LIFEX the Albions, add hangers and extend their OSDs out into at least the 2040s. They have not been worked hard and are very solidly built.

Putting that to one side, a budget of around £2.5bn is adequate to fully replace the entire Amphibious fleet and increase capability at the same time.

RN could commission three 200m LHDs for around £500m per hull. The LHDs could be augmented by three 180m enforcers to directly replace each Bay like for like. Around £1bn should build the enforcers in the UK as long they were kept simple and did not stray into Karel Doorman territory.

If RN went down the 3 LHDs and 3 LSDs route it would allow each LRG to contain one LHD, one LSD and one Wave replacement. The six vessels could rotate through the two LRGs ensuring great availability.

The rest of the funding should come from scrapping the T32 program (£2.5bn) and reallocating the money to upgrade the T31s and add another batch of 3 hulls to make 8 in total. This would likely cost an additional £2bn. The remaining £500m could be spent on the high capacity OPVs to patrol East/West Africa and the Caribbean etc.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
Clive Fserge750

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 we could build 3 Enforcer LPD and 3 Enforcer LHD's build the LPD's first and then use the knowledge gained to move on the the LHD everything below the main deck is the same its a case of fitting the LPD or LHD superstructure on top

As for Type 31 what I see is they cost about 280 million to get them where they are so thing to add

NSM =20 million per set of 8
GSDB = 1.5 million per set of 12
Containerised TAS = 30 million
Extra 12 CAMM tubes and black boxes = 4 million

So T-31 = 280 + 20 + 1.5 + 4 = 305 . So 3 x new T-31's with the extra kit would cost 916 million 5 extra kits of 8 NSM , 12 GSDB and 12 CAMM tubes would cost 127.5 million and then add 6 containerised TAS systems = 180 million

This would give us 8 ships capable of carrying 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24/36 CAMM , 8 x NSM , 12 x GSDB , 2 x Wildcat with 4 x Sea Venom or 20 LMM or 2 Stingray each plus would be able to drop in a TAS when needed for 1.25 Billion

This would leave 1.25 billion if the T-32 program was 2.5 billion which could allow a clean sheet design for a 110 x 16 meter OPV along the line of Holland class

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 Mar 2023, 09:54 This would leave 1.25 billion if the T-32 program was 2.5 billion which could allow a clean sheet design for a 110 x 16 meter OPV along the line of Holland class
The Holland class is a great OPV but again it’s last generation now. A good starting point but what does next generation look like?

It really depends on what RN want it’s next-gen OPVs to achieve.

1: Is it for simple maritime security tasks?
2: What weapons and sensors?
3: Is it a single, multi hanger or no helo at all?
4: Is it to conduct meaningful HADR.
5: Is it to contain medical facilities, if so what?
6: Is it to operate 15t craft and XLUUV?
7: Is it RB2 top speed (25kn) or Holland (21kn)?
8: Is it short range 5000nm or long 10,000nm?
9: What size of crew and EMF?
10: RORO, if yes, what size?
11: Stern launching ramp for RHIBs?
12: Steel beach or stern/side offloading ramps?
13: Is it one or two spot flight deck?
14: Is it naval or commercial build standards?
15: What size of deck crane
16: Mexeflote capable?
17: Working deck size? Covered or uncovered?
18: Budget?

Long before getting to the concept and design stage these are the questions that need answered.

When you answer the questions the vessel will virtually design itself and if it exists already then there is no need for a clean sheet design and therefore more money saved.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

My general thought is that in a future OPV/Sloop/LSV there should not be a dedicated hangar as such, more of a flexible / configurable sheltered mission bay.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 16:01 The RN has also stated that they will act as escorts for the LSG -so not just flag waving & maritime constabulary.
Mythical LSG can be guarded with unicorns.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
serge750

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 16:24 RN is adapting the T31 (as predicted by many) and it is gradually turning into a GP Frigate with similar capabilities as the T23 GP that are being replaced.
You (and many others) hope.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 16:15
Caribbean wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 16:01 The RN has also stated that they will act as escorts for the LSG -so not just flag waving & maritime constabulary.
It was also stated by the last Sea Lord that they would be sent into harms way
Pirates shoot back and embassy parties can get pretty rowdy.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 13 Mar 2023, 11:35The Holland class is a great OPV but again it’s last generation now. A good starting point but what does next generation look like?

It really depends on what RN want it’s next-gen OPVs to achieve.

1: Is it for simple maritime security tasks?
2: What weapons and sensors?
3: Is it a single, multi hanger or no helo at all?
4: Is it to conduct meaningful HADR.
5: Is it to contain medical facilities, if so what?
6: Is it to operate 15t craft and XLUUV?
7: Is it RB2 top speed (25kn) or Holland (21kn)?
8: Is it short range 5000nm or long 10,000nm?
9: What size of crew and EMF?
10: RORO, if yes, what size?
11: Stern launching ramp for RHIBs?
12: Steel beach or stern/side offloading ramps?
13: Is it one or two spot flight deck?
14: Is it naval or commercial build standards?
15: What size of deck crane
16: Mexeflote capable?
17: Working deck size? Covered or uncovered?
18: Budget?

Long before getting to the concept and design stage these are the questions that need answered.

When you answer the questions the vessel will virtually design itself and if it exists already then there is no need for a clean sheet design and therefore more money saved.
Very good list. And, it makes me feel there is nothing to hurry. UAV, USV, and UUV drones are emerging technology, and no one know the right answer, because it is still evolving rapidly.

- Buying civilian PSVs/OSVs to be used as a "trial drone carrier" makes perfect sense.
- Life extension of LPDs and LSDs also makes good sense. We do not know in what way the drones will change the LRG tactics.
- Designing T32 now is a mistake and pontless. Drones tactics are not yet settled, and T32 as designed now can rapidly be useless in a decade. Also, RN cannot man them now (because T31 and T26 are quite new and shall provide very high readiness, for a decade or more).
- There are plenty of ways to "enjoy" drone-world in trial, using Bays, River B2s, CVFs, T26s, and Argus. They all have great potential to be opened easily. So, why not we now focus on this aspect?

How a River B2 can be "up-armed" by drones?
How a Bay can be a drones mother ship?
How CVFs can operate UAVs in number?
How T26 can operate USV/UAVs?

T31? Not a good drone handler, but yes she has a hangar and a flight deck, so, some UAVs could be trialed. USVs? With only 3 boat bays, T31 only has the same boat handling capability as NZ's Te Kaha class frigates (which routinely carries 3 7.5-m RHIBs) = nothing special.


Note; Among them, RFA Argus is the only "very old" asset. So, considering her replacement may be the first thing to think. However, we must admit that RFA ARgus's crew is needed for the 2nd and 3rd FSSS. I can see no way of manning 3 FSSS without disbanding Argus. So, again, not a high priority...
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqwargame_insomniac

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 13 Mar 2023, 12:57 My general thought is that in a future OPV/Sloop/LSV there should not be a dedicated hangar as such, more of a flexible / configurable sheltered mission bay.
I am intrigued to know what one of these sloops would look like and what utility they would possess?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 13 Mar 2023, 14:12
Repulse wrote: 13 Mar 2023, 12:57 My general thought is that in a future OPV/Sloop/LSV there should not be a dedicated hangar as such, more of a flexible / configurable sheltered mission bay.
I am intrigued to know what one of these sloops would look like and what utility they would possess?
I’d start with either the bmt venator 90 or venari 85
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 13 Mar 2023, 13:55 Very good list. And, it makes me feel there is nothing to hurry.
Thanks.

I agree there is no need to hurry but I also think RN is at a crossroads. Since 2010 lots of assets have been used in suboptimal ways to plug gaps due to bottlenecks, lack of funding, lack of crew or simply keeping vessels busy.

That was fine before both CVFs became operational and a serious war in Europe started. Current planning simply hasn’t adapted and IMO lots can be achieved by a thorough reorganisation without spending any more money. Only then can additional assets be considered if the money and crew is available.

For example, is a Bay still absolutely necessary for Kipion or could a cheap commercial vessel perform just as well?

APT(N) appears to be organised in the most inefficient way possible. A commercial vessel, tailored for the tasking would be much better than the random allocation of various vessels depending on what is free at any given time. It looks like an afterthought and certainly not a high priority. The UK can and must do much better in the Caribbean or the opinions of the next generations will not be kind as those previously.

What is RN currently doing or has recently done around the East and West coasts of Africa? Where is the flag waving and defence engagement in Africa? Where is the persistent HADR presence to help the poorest continent on earth? Why is the Caribbean and Indo Pacific more important than Africa? This is one area that needs urgent attention IMO.

By solving these four areas of concern all other RN/RFA assets can concentrate elsewhere as they should. By basing one RB2 in both the Falklands and Gibraltar and procuring four cheap commercially sourced vessels for each of the four patrol areas RN can solve a lot of issues. The West African patrol vessel could be supported by the RB2 from Gib if required and the East African patrol vessel could be supported by a T31 from Duqm if required. It’s unlikely the Caribbean patrol vessel would require any support. The forth vessel could replace the Bay in the gulf. It would be efficient and highly effective.

That would allow both Albions, the three Bays and Argus to concentrate on forming the LRGs. It would also allow all of the T23s/T26s and T45s to concentrate on the CVFs and protecting the CASD. The Amphibs could concentrate on exploring the emerging off board technologies.

It would also allow a Bay to be converted to allow Argus to decommission.

In the areas of the globe that RN really want to concentrate on it would vastly increase the UKs presence and without the need for any multibillion cash injections.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Often the discussion revolves around “vital sea lanes”. Let’s look say strategically eg more than a year ahead to the industries of the future as the government likes to call things, for use of rare earth metals, copper that would be vital to the next big industrial push in the U.K. .

Let’s also remember if we do not drastically cut our dependence on China and it’s reserves of these metals and it’s manufacturing in general we will have lost the war before the shooting starts.

So for a list Canada, Brazil, Greenland, South Africa, mexico, Australia rare earths and their manufacture.

Peru and chile produce 1/3 of the worlds cooper.

If we haven’t noticed others certainly will have and over which seas will such goods move to the U.K.?

Engagement with these countries development of ties trade protection from destabilisation around there spheres.

We have limited funds limited places fantasy shopping list won’t help in any way improve the current situation it will make it worse, procuring off active production lines is both quicker easier and cheaper than starting from scratch.

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: 13 Mar 2023, 00:42
wargame_insomniac wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 19:49
Without going too far into the amphibs, by my rough reckoning, Argus is approx 35 years old, 2*Albions are approx 20 years old and 3*Bays are approx 17 years old. So we are left with the question - what ships were the supposedly 6*MRSS due to replace and/or augment??
Firstly, I don’t think a clean sheet MRSS vessel can be built in the U.K. for less than £400m. That’s a total program cost of around £2.5bn. It’s a lot of money and perhaps it can be better spent.

Secondly, why six MRSS? The distributed assets approach coming together to form a LRG makes complete sense but depending on what form a MRSS takes it’s also a massive capability cut. A mixture Of LPH,LPD and LSD looks to be much better balanced.

Thirdly, if the East/West Africa and Caribbean patrol areas are covered by cheap but highly capable patrol vessels built to commercial standards and operated by the RFA then what is RN going to do with SIX MRSS? It wouldn’t be a bad outcome but I think RN could achieve much more for the same amount of cash.

Personally I would LIFEX the Albions, add hangers and extend their OSDs out into at least the 2040s. They have not been worked hard and are very solidly built.

Putting that to one side, a budget of around £2.5bn is adequate to fully replace the entire Amphibious fleet and increase capability at the same time.

RN could commission three 200m LHDs for around £500m per hull. The LHDs could be augmented by three 180m enforcers to directly replace each Bay like for like. Around £1bn should build the enforcers in the UK as long they were kept simple and did not stray into Karel Doorman territory.

If RN went down the 3 LHDs and 3 LSDs route it would allow each LRG to contain one LHD, one LSD and one Wave replacement. The six vessels could rotate through the two LRGs ensuring great availability.

The rest of the funding should come from scrapping the T32 program (£2.5bn) and reallocating the money to upgrade the T31s and add another batch of 3 hulls to make 8 in total. This would likely cost an additional £2bn. The remaining £500m could be spent on the high capacity OPVs to patrol East/West Africa and the Caribbean etc.
Apologies if I had quoted the wrong person, but I thought it was you who suggested using some of the MRSS funds to afford 3 of what you has described as 140m Support Vessel?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 13 Mar 2023, 17:47 Apologies if I had quoted the wrong person, but I thought it was you who suggested using some of the MRSS funds to afford 3 of what you has described as 140m Support Vessel?
Absolutley.

If the combined T32 and MRSS budgets actually materialise and amount to around £5bn then that’s enough IMO to fix the surface fleet. I am just not convinced that spending that amount on the T32 and MRSS classes is the correct direction of travel.

Much better to focus on the T26 and T31 programs and especially maximise the T31 hulls plus invest in additional patrol vessels to take the strain from the escorts and Amphibs. The direction of travel with the newly refreshed IR and AUKUS appear to validate this view and any rationale for launching a class of below average Frigates is now dead.

The support vessels you mention could just as easily be named LSVs, MRVs, JLS or any number of other things. Personally I think they are best described as high capacity OPVs.

My opinion is that the RB2s are doing fine but larger more capable vessels could achieve much more. The reason they need to be around 140m is simply to allow everything to fit.

- To operate and embark a helicopter an OPV needs to be around 105m

- To add a meaningful working deck the LOA needs to increase to by 10 to 15m.

- To add a hanger suitable for multiple helos adds another 15m to 20m.

- To add a two spot flight adds another 20m to 30m depending on Chinook capability.

That’s a bit simplistic but it’s pretty close.

So if you want an OPV with a multi helo hanger, two spot flight deck and a working deck with deck crane then 140m LOA is around the minimum required.

IMO there is absolutely no need to build these OPVs like LPDs. A clever mix of mostly commercial standards is perfectly acceptable for East/West Africa and Caribbean patrol ships. They would effectively be coastguard vessels. If money was especially tight then converted commercial vessels would be acceptable much like Argus albeit on a smaller scale.

Replacing the RB1s with more 80m to 90m OPVs would be a huge missed opportunity. Much better options without spending any more money.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 14 Mar 2023, 00:43 The direction of travel with the newly refreshed IR and AUKUS appear to validate this view and any rationale for launching a class of below average Frigates is now dead.
So your answer to the lack of rationale for a class of below average frigates is instead to purchase a class of OPVs impersonating an even further below average frigate.

If there is pressure on the escorts buy some more of the ship that is already in production at £250m per hull.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 14 Mar 2023, 00:58 So your answer to the lack of rationale for a class of below average frigates is instead to purchase a class of OPVs impersonating an even further below average frigate.

If there is pressure on the escorts buy some more of the ship that is already in production at £250m per hull.
Where did I suggest purchasing an OPV to impersonate a Frigate?
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
Repulse

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 14 Mar 2023, 00:43 The support vessels you mention could just as easily be named LSVs, MRVs, JLS or any number of other things. Personally I think they are best described as high capacity OPVs.
Completely agree - doesn’t really matter what it’s called but a single design that can take over all (or the majority parts) of the current OPV, future MCM and support for small (troop level) distributed FCF ops is exactly what is needed. Call it an OPV, call it a multi-role sloop doesn’t really matter. It does though need to be able to be deployed globally.

One thing is now clear if the direction of the RN is to have a higher proportion of SSNs in the fleet then the surface fleet will need to be relatively small, balanced with each vessel being multi-role.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 14 Mar 2023, 00:43 My opinion is that the RB2s are doing fine but larger more capable vessels could achieve much more. The reason they need to be around 140m is simply to allow everything to fit.



- To operate and embark a helicopter an OPV needs to be around 105m



Replacing the RB1s with more 80m to 90m OPVs would be a huge missed opportunity. Much better options without spending any more money.
No surprise that I’m not going to jump on the “gotta be big” bandwagon. I’d only comment that there are plenty of ships operating helicopters with a length less than 105m. Also, there is no need for multi-helicopter hangers - though HMS Endurance did at a length of 91m.

I’m also going to be controversial and say the best thing to replace the LPDs are a couple more LPDs (or perhaps three smaller ones) - this doesn’t need to happen until late 2030s. Given brigade level ops is dead and the Army seems disinterested in sea lift beyond perhaps the Points then I’d also go as far to say that the three logistical support ships (LSDs) should be replaced by adding one to the FSS order.

So are we fast approaching the day where the RN significant surface fleet is just over 30 vessels?

- 2 CVFs + 2 LPDs
- 14 T26/T45/T83s
- 5 T31s
- 10 OPVs+
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I think the surface fleet will end up around mid 20s in numbers tbh

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 14 Mar 2023, 08:05 I think the surface fleet will end up around mid 20s in numbers tbh
I hope you are wrong - one thing for sure is that if it is true, having two yards is a dead dream.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 14 Mar 2023, 08:14
SW1 wrote: 14 Mar 2023, 08:05 I think the surface fleet will end up around mid 20s in numbers tbh
I hope you are wrong - one thing for sure is that if it is true, having two yards is a dead dream.
With satellite surveillance, AI to scan it and significant investments in surface to surface and surface to air systems by our peer and near peer opponents we are being driven underwater for high end war fighting and deterrence.

I know people don’t like me mentioning it but it’s not carrier strike that is the future it is the submarine fleet and sea denial to our opponents.

It’s entirely dependant on build schedules and age before replacement/export strategy.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 14 Mar 2023, 08:31 With satellite surveillance, AI to scan it and significant investments in surface to surface and surface to air systems by our peer and near peer opponents we are being driven underwater for high end war fighting and deterrence.

I know people don’t like me mentioning it but it’s not carrier strike that is the future it is the submarine fleet and sea denial to our opponents.

It’s entirely dependant on build schedules and age before replacement/export strategy.
I’m also sceptical when we lurch from over focusing in one area and then the other. The Nott review was a perfect example - is still argue for a balanced fleet. Just because you control under the sea doesn’t mean that you don’t need Strike ability to hit facilities on land - sure SSNs can have ground attack capabilities but it’s very limited and when you use it you are then a target. We need SSNs, CSGs and a Multirole Overseas Patrol Squadron. Not sure we need (or can afford) separate LSGs but that will be decided by funding.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Post Reply