Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Any likely budget or future budget doesn’t even get you half that lot. If there is no attempt to come up with a plan that stays inside any likely future budget not to mention add at least a 15% contingency then the malaise and drift of the past 30 years will continue. That is all before the conversation if the high level budget split between equipment, personnel and infrastructure has been correct.

I would suggest it hasn’t been and that more needs diverted away from equipment purchases than has hitherto been the case. Or in short a smaller force more focused on long term uk interests but better manned and supported. If we want to focus then it needs to be in uk and overseas sovereign location that we know will still as very valuable to us in 40 years just as they have been for the past 100 years.

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: 26 Mar 2023, 12:20 Or in short a smaller force ...
A smaller navy. Yep, that will do it (eyes roll).

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 13:31
SW1 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 12:20 Or in short a smaller force ...
A smaller navy. Yep, that will do it (eyes roll).
Yes I forgot much better to continue as we are, ordering equipment that we don’t support properly can’t man, double job everything add never ending commitments ensuring no contingency all the while making the people who make it work live and work in buildings falling dwn round them, wonder why retention is an issue as them at the top shuffle the deck chairs yet again and write nice letters to the times demanding more money, bigger and bigger percentages of gdp and how it’s everyone else’s fault.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 12:20 Any likely budget or future budget doesn’t even get you half that lot.
I must admit that adding another T31 and T26 was aspirational rather than realistic.

Having said that, the rest is achievable.

- 2 Ice Patrol ships £200mn - buy both second hand, one similar to Protector and the other converted like the latter HMS Endurance.
- 5 LSVs £500mn - max £100mn per unit for new build ships, single multi-role mission bay on the back of a ship built to commercial standard similar size to the soon to be RFA Stirling Castle.
- 2 MRSS/HMRS £nil - Use two of the Bay LSDs for the multi-role support ships, adding permanent hangers to both. To pay for the conversion I would sell the 3rd Bay.
- Aviation Support Ship £250mn - I would do a similar purchase of a second hand commercial sea container ship.
- 2 LPDs £nil - keep with the 2 Albion Class
- Upgrade the 5 B2 OPVs £50mn - 57mm gun and 2 reused 30mms port and starboard, with an upgrade to the SCANTER 6002 radar.

£1bn all in - probably a third of what is being discussed between the T32, MRSS and LSV budgets today.
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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 12:20 Any likely budget or future budget doesn’t even get you half that lot. If there is no attempt to come up with a plan that stays inside any likely future budget not to mention add at least a 15% contingency then the malaise and drift of the past 30 years will continue. That is all before the conversation if the high level budget split between equipment, personnel and infrastructure has been correct.

I would suggest it hasn’t been and that more needs diverted away from equipment purchases than has hitherto been the case. Or in short a smaller force more focused on long term uk interests but better manned and supported. If we want to focus then it needs to be in uk and overseas sovereign location that we know will still as very valuable to us in 40 years just as they have been for the past 100 years.
Well what we know is type 31 costs about 280 million as thing stand for that the ship comes with

NS110 radar , TACOS CMS , 2170 TDS , 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 12 to 24 CAMM

We also know that NSM is about 20 million a set GSDB is about 1.5 million for a set of 12 and 12 extra CAMM mushroom tubes plus black boxes is about 8 to 10 million = around 32 million making a Type 31 + about 320 million

So if we go with a 2.5 billion budget for type 32 we could go for

5 x upgrade kits for the first 5 T-31's = 160 million
3 x new Type 31+ = 960 million
6 x Vard-7=313 = 600 million
Total 1.72 billion

Now if we take say 2.5 billion for the MRSS program and build 4 LHD's for 600 million each = 2.4 billion

For this is a great build program for Rosyth

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Or we could divert that money you are spending on new ships to base infrastructure improvements, better man power retention, a more robust spares and weapons holding, or if you really want to spend it on equipment the ssn fleet.

Priorities and choices. Not just I want more ships
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 16:14 Or we could divert that money you are spending on new ships to base infrastructure improvements, better man power retention, a more robust spares and weapons holding, or if you really want to spend it on equipment the ssn fleet.

Priorities and choices. Not just I want more ships
There is a separate budget for infrastructure and it is not being spent well as at this time across the MOD we are getting about 1000 pounds worth of work for every 5000 pounds spent went it comes to infrastructure. The simple fact is we need these ships and we need better infrastructure and the money is there it just needs grabbing by the bollocks and spending better and if this is done retention will follow

As for the SSN's its 13 ships for the fleet or 3 SSN's

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 10:04
Repulse wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 08:47
SW1 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 22:43 What offensive weapons is on a type 31?

We maintained a frigate and a tanker in the area up until about 2015. There is zero escalation placing a frigate in the region.


You are correct that as currently configured the T31 paper frigate could do little offensive operations.

However, it doesn’t really matter, you deploy a frigate when you believe the threat to be high or you want to a visible capability to project power beyond the EEZ. The fact that we are deploying one that isn’t capable is just embarrassing nothing more.

Also, who cares that we used to have one deployed, it’s the direction of travel that matters.
You deploy a frigate for oceanic patrol, escort and information gathering. Type 31 is no different to the rest of the escort fleet in terms of its “offensive” capabilities. It’s there for historic roles of sea power.

You talk about the importance of trade as there is more oil that goes down east Africa and round the cape of good hope than there is goes thru the bab el mandeb and more Chinese interest int he cape and pirate incidents in west Africa a frigate would be an appropriate option.
Both India and South Africa took part in a BRICS martime exercise recently. We need to pull both away from the increasing Chinese (and to a lesser extent Russian) influenece. In the short term the RN can only spare River B2s to operate in the area and conduct joint exercises with local navies. In the medium term the T31 Frigates can then take over that role and work with our allies on anti-piracy operations in those areas.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 14:52
SW1 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 12:20 Any likely budget or future budget doesn’t even get you half that lot.
I must admit that adding another T31 and T26 was aspirational rather than realistic.

Having said that, the rest is achievable.

- 2 Ice Patrol ships £200mn - buy both second hand, one similar to Protector and the other converted like the latter HMS Endurance.
- 5 LSVs £500mn - max £100mn per unit for new build ships, single multi-role mission bay on the back of a ship built to commercial standard similar size to the soon to be RFA Stirling Castle.
- 2 MRSS/HMRS £nil - Use two of the Bay LSDs for the multi-role support ships, adding permanent hangers to both. To pay for the conversion I would sell the 3rd Bay.
- Aviation Support Ship £250mn - I would do a similar purchase of a second hand commercial sea container ship.
- 2 LPDs £nil - keep with the 2 Albion Class
- Upgrade the 5 B2 OPVs £50mn - 57mm gun and 2 reused 30mms port and starboard, with an upgrade to the SCANTER 6002 radar.

£1bn all in - probably a third of what is being discussed between the T32, MRSS and LSV budgets today.
I like much of this, but we might need to tone down slightly on grounds of crew and budget availability.

-I would like to see at least one extra Ice Patrol Ship, for the Artic. Similar to MROSS but strengthened hull and propulsion, Polar Class 5, able to carryout year-round operation in medium first-year ice. Use USuV for monitoring undersea cables in artic waters.

-Re LSV's, I can see the need for 4 of them, based in Carribean, Gibralter, Oman and Bahrain.

-Re 2 MRSS/HMRS, I am not sure about these. The intention is that the LSV's would be able to carry out HADR. I would rather keep all 3 Bays. The Bays have previously been used as is to provide HADR, so I would prefer to keep any upgrades cheap and simple.

-Re 1 ASS, I agree that we will need a replacement fro Argos.

-Re uparming of River B2's or potential B3s, the Navy Lookout article on uparming the RB2s clarified that 57mm gun mount is deck penetrating and that 40mm gun mount is not deck penetrating. Therefore if uparming any of the existing RB2s I would keep costs down and simply add 40mm main gun. I would be happy with either 30mm or 20mm as pair of secondary guns - along with any simple cheap improvements to radar and gun control systems. Add some cheaper UAVs and USVs for increased ISR,

As the world gets tenser and more volatile, it is important that RB2s can do more to cover low intensity missions - they need to be able to cover more anti-piracy operations and have extra armanents to cope with small boat and cheap drones attacks.

IIRC the one thing we disagreed upon previously was replacing RB1s. I still maintain that with the 5th largest maritime EEZ in the world, and with the increased aggression of especially the Chinese fishing fleets, we need assets for fishery protection at home and in BOT's. As this would be mainly within helicopter cover from land, I don;t think the RB1s replacements need helicopter hangers. So I still think they can be smaller, cheaper, less crew, mainly commercial standard OPV's. Other than being large enough for good seakeeping, they can be armed with one main gun (ideally 20mm or 30mm) with a couple of 12.7mm HMG, a couple of RIB, and again cheaer UAV and USV to extend the range of patrolling.

I would want four such smaller OPVs for uk waters - ideally one apiece in English Channel, Irish Sea, North Sea and northern Scotland, ideally in local ports as was originally suggested for RB1s. If funds allow then a couple more such small OPV's for BOTS in both Carribean and St Helena / Ascension / Tristan de Cunha.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

To give further emphasis as to why it is important that we do not forget our relationships with countries in Africa (and even central and South America). We can't let China (and Russia) have a free hand in the region.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-65062976

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

SW1 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 13:52
Ron5 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 13:31
SW1 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 12:20 Or in short a smaller force ...
A smaller navy. Yep, that will do it (eyes roll).
Yes I forgot much better to continue as we are, ordering equipment…while making the people who make it work live and work in buildings falling dwn round them, wonder why retention is an issue as them at the top shuffle the deck chairs yet again
I really don’t get this line of argument. Standard depreciation on Buildings is 2% per annum. Spend that on regular maintenance and there shouldn’t be a problem. And there are still opportunities to rationalise the defence estate thus generating funds for reinvestment

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 10:21 What I would say though is that for it to be effective it needs to be present. This means hull numbers, it means ability to operate in both deep and shallow waters. A balanced fleet is key, and I’d argue the B2 Rivers are a critical part of this squadron, I do not see any need to operate them in UK waters - UK EEZ patrolling is better handled by other assets, and I’d argue part of this would be perhaps a small fleet of say 3 commercially designed PSV which can double as MCM / Survey motherships supporting the 2 MRoSS and OSV.
Perhaps this move to PSVs is going too far. How many will RN actually want?

A PSV is a great vessel but they are slow and therefore little use for general patrol and interception of vessels transiting the UK EEZ. The RB2s are perfect for this role especially with a camcopter type UAV embarked.

Having a T31 conducting FRE and able to deploy globally at short notice is a good use of resources but using the RB2s to routinely patrol UK waters is entirely proportionate.

Hopefully RN will update on the LSVs proposal soon but IMO it is a scalable concept that can be procured at various budgetary levels depending on available finance.

At the lower end they could be £10m-£20m each for converted PSVs. Very basic but highly capable for deploying all kinds of off board systems but limited for patrol use due to the slow speed.

The mid-point would be a £80m to £90m clean sheet design based on an adapted OSV or OCV hull. A LOA of 120m to 140m, 22 beam with an aim to achieve 20-24knots enabling a meaningful Patrol capability. Something like a UK modified version of the Vard 9 05.
7FE54C24-8520-43B3-8C57-90481EC4D588.png
The Vard 9 05 is 136m LOA with a 22m beam and has accommodation for 86.
Clearly the design is structurally pretty close to ideal already so sea keeping and stability parameters are assured without major adaptation but the deck levels may need slight alteration. A tweaked off of the shelf design will be the cheapest option and also delivered fastest. So starting with the Vard 9 05 what could be achieved?

1. Maintain open stern working deck and install low profile 30t crane. Add stern gate and a PALFINGER stern launch/recovery system. With a SWL of 30t these PALFINGER systems could easily handle 11m RHIBs, CB90s, XLUUVs etc.



2. Utilise the remaining upper deck area as a 60m flightdeck. This would be large enough to lilypad 2 Chinooks concurrently if required. Add a secondary 20t deck crane aft of the superstructure.

3. Compartmentalise the enclosed mission area below the flight deck to include one 600m2 mission area connected to the 200m2 stern working deck and serviced by the PALFINGER system and an internal overhead gantry crane. Add side hatches and a side ramp.

4. The remaining 600m2 forward mission area below the flight deck could be utilised as a hanger if required with a lift providing access up to the flight deck. This space would be large enough to embark 2 Merlin and 2 Wildcats concurrently or a large number of heavy lift UAVs. This area would be roughly equivalent to two RUBB hangers.

5. The existing civilian accommodation layout could be altered to provide core crew accommodation of around 60 plus an EMF of 120. Additional medical facilities could be added if required.

6. Upgrading the propulsion system would be crucial to achieving patrol speed and range.

The mission area below the flight deck could in effect look very much like the Damen Crossover design albeit a bit more spacious as the Vard design has a 2.5m wider beam.
A571EDF2-7BF7-4241-AD2C-5086C01A6F3A.png
It is perfectly plausible that four such vessels could be procured for £350m or roughly equivalent to a single upgraded T31. Strategically forward based around the world they could easily perform the maritime security, HADR and MCM mothership roles whilst also providing an excellent platform for SF/FCF. IMO this is the most likely option for the proposed LSVs due to the cost vs capability equation.

I would prefer a more ambitious design such as a Vard 7 312 or 313 tailored for UK requirements but it’s clear a modified Offshore Construction Vessel would work very well for a very modest cost. Regardless of the amount of finance available RN could and should get a great capability enhancement with the LSVs provided an off of the shelf design is chosen and it is kept as simple as possible.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
SD67

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

As I said for me the RB2's still have a role to play and if there is a 5 billion budget for Type 32 and MRSS then I would push for a ship like Vard-7-313. I think we could 3 Type 31 plus and upgrade the first 5 to the same standard for about 1.12 billion. We could then get 6 x Vard-7-313 for about 800 million. next up upgrade the 5 RB2's with a 40mm plus 2 x stabilized 12.7mm with 4 x LMM and add a 3D radar cost about 200 million.

With this we can cover a lot of tasks at the lower and upper middle range when it comes to MRSS I would build 3 x LHD's and 4 more Point class for 2 billion this would give us

8 x Type 31 plus
6 x Vard-7-313
5 x RB2 plus
3 x LHD's
8 x Point class

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 6):
Tempest414Repulsedonald_of_tokyowargame_insomniacSD67serge750

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 04:10
SW1 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 13:52
Ron5 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 13:31
SW1 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 12:20 Or in short a smaller force ...
A smaller navy. Yep, that will do it (eyes roll).
Yes I forgot much better to continue as we are, ordering equipment…while making the people who make it work live and work in buildings falling dwn round them, wonder why retention is an issue as them at the top shuffle the deck chairs yet again
I really don’t get this line of argument. Standard depreciation on Buildings is 2% per annum. Spend that on regular maintenance and there shouldn’t be a problem. And there are still opportunities to rationalise the defence estate thus generating funds for reinvestment
All you need to know that he's a RAF man that wants a smaller Navy. Nothing new.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 18:29 8 x Type 31 plus
6 x Vard-7-313
5 x RB2 plus
3 x LHD's
I agree broadly with this but more than 3 floodable well docks will be required to provide redundancy and allow ship to shore logistics transfer so 6 vessels each embarking 2 LCU sized vessels is the optimal way forward in my opinion.

As for the LSVs, my main point was that modified PSVs or ideally OCVs would provide a viable solution if money is tight.

My question would be: if the money is so tight that the entire MCMV fleet has to be replaced with pre-owned PSVs where did the budget for the MCMVs go? It can’t be the T32 program as there is no money for that either. It can’t be the T31 program as that was funded through the T26 program. Has the budget been blown on the RB2s and off-board systems? It’s another massive capability to lose without any idea where the funding for the replacement vessels is coming from.

A sensible budget for the entire replacement MCM capability would have been around £1.6bn over 5 or 6 years split 60/40 between replacement vessels and the off-board systems. That would have been enough to provide 8x £120m vessels with 6x £100m MCM kits. Sensible, proportionate and affordable.

Where did the money go?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 13:51 Where did the money go?
Paying for the short term cash savings I would have thought.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoRon5
”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

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 13:51
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 18:29 8 x Type 31 plus
6 x Vard-7-313
5 x RB2 plus
3 x LHD's
I agree broadly with this but more than 3 floodable well docks will be required to provide redundancy and allow ship to shore logistics transfer so 6 vessels each embarking 2 LCU sized vessels is the optimal way forward in my opinion.

As for the LSVs, my main point was that modified PSVs or ideally OCVs would provide a viable solution if money is tight.

My question would be: if the money is so tight that the entire MCMV fleet has to be replaced with pre-owned PSVs where did the budget for the MCMVs go? It can’t be the T32 program as there is no money for that either. It can’t be the T31 program as that was funded through the T26 program. Has the budget been blown on the RB2s and off-board systems? It’s another massive capability to lose without any idea where the funding for the replacement vessels is coming from.

A sensible budget for the entire replacement MCM capability would have been around £1.6bn over 5 or 6 years split 60/40 between replacement vessels and the off-board systems. That would have been enough to provide 8x £120m vessels with 6x £100m MCM kits. Sensible, proportionate and affordable.

Where did the money go?
Ajax and Morpheus.
There's an easy solution to this - abolish the Army. Donate the Challengers and Warriors to Ukraine. Keep the paras and maybe the Guards. We're a Maritime power always have been always will be.
(semi tongue in cheek, grabbing tin hat and running)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Hey, don't forget the Marines!!

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Gamechanger!

Mojave UAV now able to launch and be recovered on a 100m flight deck. Very Impressive.



It is unbelievable that RN currently only has two 65,000t CVFs to utilise this technological leap.

These MALE drone should be at the core of any LRG/LSG. Despite the endless trails of new and emerging technologies RN seem to be badly behind the curve on this one.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

This is one of the reasons I think we need 2 or more 210 x 40 meter Flat tops as we as the Carriers for me having a 210 meter flat top with say 6 x of these 6 x wildcats , 6 Merlin and 2 Chinook would be a big thing for the LRG or even in the Indo-Pacific when there is no carrier in the region being able to project sea power

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: 31 Mar 2023, 08:55 Gamechanger!

Mojave UAV now able to launch and be recovered on a 100m flight deck. Very Impressive.



It is unbelievable that RN currently only has two 65,000t CVFs to utilise this technological leap.

These MALE drone should be at the core of any LRG/LSG. Despite the endless trails of new and emerging technologies RN seem to be badly behind the curve on this one.
Not clear how a drone that's not robust enough for a combat zone makes any difference.

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: 31 Mar 2023, 08:55 Gamechanger!
Mojave UAV now able to launch and be recovered on a 100m flight deck. Very Impressive.
...
It is unbelievable that RN currently only has two 65,000t CVFs to utilise this technological leap.

These MALE drone should be at the core of any LRG/LSG. Despite the endless trails of new and emerging technologies RN seem to be badly behind the curve on this one.
Ron5 wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 14:17Not clear how a drone that's not robust enough for a combat zone makes any difference.
I think both points of view are true.

MALE from 150-200m flat top is a big capability leap.

1: When patrolling an area with "potential" fast-boat swarm attack for years. The 24/7 coverage provided by MALE, with an order of magnitude smaller operational burden to keep it 24/7 compared to doing it with 4-5 Wildcats, is quite a big support. As a sentry in the sky, these MALE are perfect solution.

If enemy has a good airforce in the area, MALE will not survive long. But if it is not the case, it works perfectly.

2: When patrolling an area with "potential" SSK threat for years. The 24/7 coverage provided by MALE with ASW kit, with an order of magnitude smaller operational burden to keep it 24/7 compared to doing it with 4--5 Merlin HM2, is quite a big support. The sonobuoy barrier provided by the MALE-ASW will provide good control of sea.

Note that item-2 is much more expensive than item-1, because you need a few dozens of sonobuoys. But, even so, it will be much cheaper than doing the same with Merlin.

continue...
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
serge750

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 »

"300ft for take-off (apparently light load) and landing" means you need at least 150-200m flat top, for the safely margins. Thinking about such a specialist vessels is one possibility, but HMS QNLZ and PoW are both good assets for these MALEs, I think.

1: MALEs are good at wide-area coverage in 24/7 manner. This is not an easy task for any ship borne helicopters. Helicopter operation is very limited and you need big load of maintenance for its flight hour. MALE lacks "punch" nor "good ASW sensitivity". But, F-35 with JSM and Wildcat with SeaVenom can be sent in a few minutes, when the enemies are spotted. And, Merlin HM2 with good dipping sonar and 2 torpedoes can locate enemy subs in high accuracy and sink them. What they both needs is a 24/7 surveillance.

2: Landing safety? I think RN CVs if added with crash barricades can easily and safely operate these MALES.

Image

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

So how does this new Mojave compare to putting the STOL kit on the Sky Guardian / Sea Guardian drone?

In terms of cost and potential payload, range, endurance etc?

This was one we discussed following a recent Navy Lookour article.

Post Reply