Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

The decision to buy nsm for any of the surface fleet has only been taken in the past few months.
Yes, with un-known amount of budget newly assigned (of course using the £250M originally allocated for interim SSM program, so may be more than £300M?). And I think it does not include any amount from the £2Bn assigned for T31.
[/quote] contract was £200m for 11x 8 NSM canisters + 1 or 2 fills of said canisters. It was a purchase for the fleet and not out of t31 budget

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 15:26
SW1 wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 15:06How do u or any of us know what was in the government furnished equipment part of the contract. There may have a been a budget line of integration of future anti ship missile or similar as an example
Why didn't HMT cut it right at the beginning?

RN came with £2Bn proposal for a program with £1.25Bn assigned. How can RN "avoid" the strong and simple "questions" from HMT, "why do you need this money assigned now, even though you are already 65% over budget ? (are you serious?)".

And, if RN succeeded to include its budgets, why not RN stated so already?

Sorry, very sorry, but I cannot simply follow your idea. Anything can happen, yes, RN might be "hiding" its great success to add Mk.41 from the begining but somehow kept it secret for years. Really? From where such an super-optimistic thinking comes, after looking at the RN/MOD budgetary issue for nearly a decade?
One last go then I’m leaving it here.

The RN made a budget allocation of £2b in 2019 for type 31 in the 10 year equipment plan. It’s not all spent at once. Within that £2b program we know a 1.25b pound design and manufacturing contract was let to Babcock for the ships as currently specified.

The treasury doesn’t “cut” specific bits it asks each year if the program remains within its program budget at contract entry. Problems start when it doesn’t.

We do not know publicly what was in the rest of program budget beyond that it included government furnished equipment (opinions suggested at the time it maybe equipment from type 23s or it may be something new), risk management (some of which may have been retired and freed cash or realised and spent inflation overruns ect) and commissioning of new class costs. The RN and the treasury do know what made up the difference we do not.

They are NOT 65% over budget.

The RN are not hiding anything there is still no order for mk41 only discussion. But we do know from engineering documents released that seating and mounting as well as interfaces have been provisioned for hull mounted sonar and mk41 vertical launch systems so someone was thinking about it at contract signature even if nothing was officially ordered at the time.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 4):
Poiuytrewqnew guyTempest414JohnM

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

new guy wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 15:32
The decision to buy nsm for any of the surface fleet has only been taken in the past few months.
Yes, with un-known amount of budget newly assigned (of course using the £250M originally allocated for interim SSM program, so may be more than £300M?). And I think it does not include any amount from the £2Bn assigned for T31.
contract was £200m for 11x 8 NSM canisters + 1 or 2 fills of said canisters. It was a purchase for the fleet and not out of t31 budget
[/quote]

Yes but the integration cost of a future new anti ship missile may have been in the type 31 program budget.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

SW1 wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 16:01
new guy wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 15:32
The decision to buy nsm for any of the surface fleet has only been taken in the past few months.
Yes, with un-known amount of budget newly assigned (of course using the £250M originally allocated for interim SSM program, so may be more than £300M?). And I think it does not include any amount from the £2Bn assigned for T31.
contract was £200m for 11x 8 NSM canisters + 1 or 2 fills of said canisters. It was a purchase for the fleet and not out of t31 budget
Yes but the integration cost of a future new anti ship missile may have been in the type 31 program budget.
[/quote]
Of course . It is likely a relatively small cost, or at least one the RN is comfortable with because I see no reason for NSM not to be integrated on T31 just as NSM is integrate across the whole of the escort fleet (both T45 and T23) now. In fact it would be strange it T31 is never fitted with NSM.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 10:33
Tempest414 wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 07:39 We don't have to wait and see it all there to be seen type 31 has a 2 billion pound program cost and it is public record that the build contact is 250 per ship with 18 million GFE = 268 million the question is how much is left in the 2 billion program for MK-41's and NSM. we can a figure of about 200 million on buying and fitting 5 sets of 32 MK-41
I simply do not think so. NAO report says £2Bn for T31 everything, years before Mk.41 discussion nor NSM. Not related.

For Mk.41 and NSM, surely additional money is needed.
Well as said we know the costs of 5 sets of 32 Mk-41's supplied and fitted is 200 million , 5 sets of NSM supplied and fitted 125 million so even if this is over and above the 2 billion then it makes the program to 2.325 billion and would take type 31 from 268 million to 330 million per ship

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Tempest414 wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 16:48
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 10:33
Tempest414 wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 07:39 We don't have to wait and see it all there to be seen type 31 has a 2 billion pound program cost and it is public record that the build contact is 250 per ship with 18 million GFE = 268 million the question is how much is left in the 2 billion program for MK-41's and NSM. we can a figure of about 200 million on buying and fitting 5 sets of 32 MK-41
I simply do not think so. NAO report says £2Bn for T31 everything, years before Mk.41 discussion nor NSM. Not related.

For Mk.41 and NSM, surely additional money is needed.
Well as said we know the costs of 5 sets of 32 Mk-41's supplied and fitted is 200 million , 5 sets of NSM supplied and fitted 125 million so even if this is over and above the 2 billion then it makes the program to 2.325 billion and would take type 31 from 268 million to 330 million per ship
And then NSM is already paid for par integration.

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: 03 Jun 2023, 23:50
wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 21:32 If so, I would be interested to know how you would have intended to cover all RN escort missions apart from TAPS, CSG escort and ASW patrol in GIUK Gap. Do you see RN's surface escorts having ANY role(s) outside the T26's ideal intended missions?
In short no. The only one that is questionable is Kipion, but actually I think that would still be possible with 10 T26s. 2 (with ability up to surge 4) for CSG, 1 for TAPS and 1 for Kipion, 4-6 in refit and training.

The rest can be done with MHPCs.
I will partially agree and patially disagree.

I can agree that RN could make good use out of some Low Tier utility ships, whether you call them MHPC, Hi-Cap OPV, LSV (Littoral Support Vessel or OSV (Ocean Support Vessel), such as the previously discussed Vard 7-313. I am hoping that the RN takes the future Budget for the initially announced 6*MRSS, and uses roughly half to get three LPD with decent hangar space for LRG(N) and LRG(S) to replace Argus / Albion / Bulwark, and uses the remainder to get 4-5 of these utility ships mentioned above.

These would be great in covering HADR, policing and patrolling BIOT's, anti-drug / people smuggling, and also to deploy small forces of RM Commandos (maybe Platooon sized) by helicopter or by boat. These would be ideal to deloy to (for example) West Indies, St Helena / Ascencion Island, Oman and maybe Kenya, with 1 assumed to be under refit/servicing in rotation. The RN needs to start (re)building relationships with foriegn navies in central and south America, west and east coasts of Africa, and Indian Ocean.

Where I disagree is that you are omitting the medium from the High / Medium / Low mix. We do need some General Purpose Frigates. As well as Persian Gulf, also useful to have regular RN escort presence in the Med, the Pacific, and at some point I suspect will need a Frigate to replace OPV currently acting as FIGS, with Argentina seeming to start rearming. And that is without mentioning assigning one to either LRG(N) and/or LRG(S). So I do think we could legimately use all 5*T31 that we have ordered, albeit I have consistently stated that T31, along with rest of RN need to do away with Fitted For But Not With, and so the T31's definitely need some upgrades, not least a proper sonar.

Again I said many times that not a fan of T32, as they seem to be more of a political sound bite rather than a coherently planned RN design for a Frigate. Again as have said before RN needs to improve their crew recruitent and retention. This will cost and until RN get further additional funds, it means broadly working within the existing crew constraints. So for both of these two reason, I think T32 should be abandoned, and the money first spent on improving existing munitions stocks, secondly improving crew recruitment and retention (having new classes of Frigates being at sea will help morale but also need to look at salaries and imporving crew / family accomodation). Thirdly we can start lookng at upgrading all of RN escorts. Adding CAMM and/or Mk41 VLS, purchasing new missiles to fill these launchers (including Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence with Aster 30 Block 1NT for T45), and any upgrades to systems and sensors (e.g. aforementioned sonar for T31).

If we have any funds remaining from cancelling T32 after paying for the abov, then and only then can we maybe afford any more escorts beyond the ordered 13 Frigates. Would I like to see a couple more T26 Batch 3, and 2-3 more T31 Batch 2?? Yes sure - it just at the moment I can't see how RN is going to be able to afford them, let alone crew them!! It's why I feel that RN's only choice for additional spnding is for creative use of the funds allocatd for 6*MRSS and 5*T32 - that assumes that RN does have some future Budget funds definitively earmarked for these projects. If not then RN room for manuevre is even more limited.....

So to sum up, yes I would like a couple more T26, but not every RN mission requires a £1bn+ ASW specialist Frigate. And therefore to get the right mix of High / Medium / Low, then I do think the RN needs some Medium Tier GP Frigates in the £250m-£400m rice bracket, and some Low Tier utility ships that maybe are in the £100m-£200m bracket. (Amounts quoted are ROUGH approximations - please don't get anal about price estimates - if so I will just ignore it).
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

T32 is just T31 batch 2 listen to Adm Radikin rather than BAE.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
SW1

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

IMHO what was always needed was a T26, built by Babcock.

A decade ago when these decisions were being made there was still a lot of deadwood at BAE - people who joined as an apprentice in 1981 and were cruising to retirement with a quasi civil service attitude ( and pension ). I suspect these people are now far fewer and as the ex Shell CEO tightens his grip everything is becoming a bit sharper. So would T31 be created today? Arguably not.
But we are where we are and it’s not a bad platform plenty of room for future growth, UK PL IN, maybe NZ maybe Ukraine (second hand?). That’s not bad

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 16:48
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 10:33
Tempest414 wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 07:39 We don't have to wait and see it all there to be seen type 31 has a 2 billion pound program cost and it is public record that the build contact is 250 per ship with 18 million GFE = 268 million the question is how much is left in the 2 billion program for MK-41's and NSM. we can a figure of about 200 million on buying and fitting 5 sets of 32 MK-41
I simply do not think so. NAO report says £2Bn for T31 everything, years before Mk.41 discussion nor NSM. Not related.

For Mk.41 and NSM, surely additional money is needed.
Well as said we know the costs of 5 sets of 32 Mk-41's supplied and fitted is 200 million , 5 sets of NSM supplied and fitted 125 million so even if this is over and above the 2 billion then it makes the program to 2.325 billion and would take type 31 from 268 million to 330 million per ship
As far as those equipments are discussed with “additional money”, I have no big objection. :D

I am not anti T31. (although yes I like T26 more). But, I am always keeping to be realistic, as you know, and I hardly had difficulty with it. In almost all cases in the past decade, realism was real. Saw zero case optimism went well.

Oh sorry, only two cases I admit there were.

T26 export success to RCN and RAN, and T31 success to Poland. (I had a feeling that Danish long lasting effort of Indonesian bid, dating back well before any T31 name was seen, with RN joining the basket as T31, may come into success. )

With some leak information the next defense update will give us, including Westminster cut, I cannot be optimistic, as always. Fingers crossed.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Ron5

Online
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 I can't see how the RN and HMG can't go ahead and fit Mk-41 and NSM to type 31 at a cost of say 340 million for the 5 ships its peanuts in the main scale of things I would also then add the NSM sets going on T-23 to T-26

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Lot of daft arguing here. The idea that some of the T31 budget was somehow preallocated for mk41's and/or NSM is ridiculous.

From the get go, we know that the RN asked that the T31 design be such a hull sonar could be fitted at a later date. And provision for a larger number of CAMM launchers. I have no problem if folks assume that similar provision was requested for Mk 41's. That's a long, long way from an actual budget allocation to fit any of those weapons systems.

Of course, design provision for CATOBAR was supposed to have been made to the QE's but really wasn't. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if any of the T31 design requests were later compromised.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 13:36 Wouldn't surprise me in the least if any of the T31 design requests were later compromised.
I'd agree it is reaching to suggest some of the T31 budget was preallocated for NSM or Mk41 launchers. However you spoil your post by your closing comment.
The parent design is Mk41 capable, the versions of Arrowhead bidded and won for other navies have Mk41, Babcock have made a point at various exhibs and conferences that Arrowhead and T31 is Mk41 capable.
A quote from the paper presented by Babcock employees to the International Naval Engineering Conference and Exhibition last year.
As two examples of the adaptable features within the platform; the foundation structural seats for four 8-Cell Mk41
Strike Length VLS modules are built in the baseline Type 31 Frigate to accept the fit of these Mk41 modules if
required in the future,
Getting on for two years ago the former 1SL said the RN were looking to fit T31 with Mk41 he is hardly going to make those comments if there was a fundamental problem fitting Mk41. Or do we expect a phone call from Babcock to MOD\RN explaining they can't fit Mk41 because they moved the senior rates mess to the Mk41 silo location when doing their design updates to meet register rules?
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
new guy

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

A great example of a Medium Capacity OPV from VARD.


LOA: 136m
Beam: 22m
Draft: 6.2m
Displacement: 9800t
Max Speed: 22knts
Endurance: 60 days
40mm
Hanger for 2 medium helicopters
Merlin capable flight deck
Accommodation for 100
SS1221 Sonar
Ice reinforced hull
Hospital facilities


https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... 20recovery.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 21:48 A great example of a Medium Capacity OPV from VARD.

LOA: 136m
Beam: 22m
Draft: 6.2m
Displacement: 9800t
Max Speed: 22knts
Endurance: 60 days
40mm
Hanger for 2 medium helicopters
Merlin capable flight deck
Accommodation for 100
SS1221 Sonar
Ice reinforced hull
Hospital facilities


https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... 20recovery.
Interesting that the fit includes a Hensoldt TRS-3D radar and Saab 9LV CMS but no missiles.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 21:53 Interesting that the fit includes a Hensoldt TRS-3D radar and Saab 9LV CMS but no missiles.
Designed to work closely with the rest of the Norwegian navy but perhaps not when the shooting starts.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 22:00
tomuk wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 21:53 Interesting that the fit includes a Hensoldt TRS-3D radar and Saab 9LV CMS but no missiles.
Designed to work closely with the rest of the Norwegian navy but perhaps not when the shooting starts.
Wartime UOR of some box launched NSM?
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

tomuk wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 22:17
Poiuytrewq wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 22:00
tomuk wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 21:53 Interesting that the fit includes a Hensoldt TRS-3D radar and Saab 9LV CMS but no missiles.
Designed to work closely with the rest of the Norwegian navy but perhaps not when the shooting starts.
Wartime UOR of some box launched NSM?
CAMM in POD's

See I like this ship I would have 2 x 40mm as the base line fit

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

tomuk wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 21:53 Interesting that the fit includes a Hensoldt TRS-3D radar and Saab 9LV CMS but no missiles.
It will have a main gun and it looks as if they want it to be able to support ASW helicopters, so I suspect the CMS will be set up for gun support, integrating sonar data and controlling helicopter ASW search patterns, as well as generic threat recognition etc. Could be a decent force multiplier when paired with a GP frigate or AAW destroyer, for instance
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

At around £170 m each and similar size to type 31 you may as well just use type 31. As they were built in Romania I suspect they would end up the same price too.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 10:52 At around £170 m each and similar size to type 31 you may as well just use type 31. As they were built in Romania I suspect they would end up the same price too.
The value in OPVs is in allowing Frigates to do what Frigates do best.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 11:05
SW1 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 10:52 At around £170 m each and similar size to type 31 you may as well just use type 31. As they were built in Romania I suspect they would end up the same price too.
The value in OPVs is in allowing Frigates to do what Frigates do best.
Or that we don’t have a need for opvs or another class of vessel.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 11:23
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 11:05
SW1 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 10:52 At around £170 m each and similar size to type 31 you may as well just use type 31. As they were built in Romania I suspect they would end up the same price too.
The value in OPVs is in allowing Frigates to do what Frigates do best.
Or that we don’t have a need for opvs or another class of vessel.
Horses for courses.

At £400m to £500m now and a crew allocation heading towards 140-150 (if the Mk41s are filled and a TAS is fitted) the T31’s are just too expensive for the low threat taskings and not set up properly for meaningful HADR.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 11:35
SW1 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 11:23
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 11:05
SW1 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 10:52 At around £170 m each and similar size to type 31 you may as well just use type 31. As they were built in Romania I suspect they would end up the same price too.
The value in OPVs is in allowing Frigates to do what Frigates do best.
Or that we don’t have a need for opvs or another class of vessel.
Horses for courses.

At £400m to £500m now and a crew allocation heading towards 140-150 (if the Mk41s are filled and a TAS is fitted) the T31’s are just too expensive for the low threat taskings and not set up properly for meaningful HADR.
Where has 400 to 500 million and 140 to 150 crew come from . Yes if the 32 Mk-41s , 8 NSM's and HMS are fitted it could get up to 380 to 400 million but it never get to 500 million plus the IH class witch has 56 cells , 16 Harpoon and a HMS only have a crew of 117 to 120
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
new guytomuk

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 11:23
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 11:05
SW1 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 10:52 At around £170 m each and similar size to type 31 you may as well just use type 31. As they were built in Romania I suspect they would end up the same price too.
The value in OPVs is in allowing Frigates to do what Frigates do best.
Or that we don’t have a need for opvs or another class of vessel.
With an infinite budget and deep waters everywhere once the polar ice caps are melted you are right - we just need battleships
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Poiuytrewq
”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