Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

would it cheaper/easier to modify the T31 with the CEFER system & keep the T26 pretty much as the RN ones ?

I don't think the T31 hull can carry the CEAFAR2 setup, it is simply too big.

Do to the apparent lower centre of gravity can BAE’s Adaptable Strike Frigate?

E08259DE-722C-42E3-B862-4AC97EEDEF1E.jpeg

[donald_of_tokyo]

Parliamentary question reveals HMS Iron Duke LIFEX refit cost whopping £100m (subject to final negotiations with Babcock).
HMS Kent LIFEX - £36M.
HMS Richmond LIFEX including PMGU engine upgrade - £56M
No wonder refitting HMS Westminster a problem.

Coming back to "RN going to lose Westminster in due course".

As she should have been back into service on 2024-2025, RN will be lacking one T23ASW from 2025 to 2028, for 3 years, when HMS Westminster was planned to be decommissioned.
- T26 is delaying so it cannot compensate this, but let's assume it goes "as planned"
- T31 is also delaying (now "capability enhancement period" announced = which means more time needed), but let's assume it goes "as planned"

To make it simple, I shall focus on the issue of, how can RN compensate losing (at least) one T23ASW from 2025 to 2028?

My proposal;

1: Move RFA Argus to RN, and use ~80 souls of the lost-T23ASW's crew there. In place, move the ~80 souls from RFA Argus to RFA Fort Victoria, and make her active until the fist FSSS comes in.

2: Upgrade two of the 5 River B2 with "ASW options trials".
- Option-1: Carry "Canistered" CAPTAS-2 system on the flight deck. Maybe two or three 20ft ISO containers.
- Option-2: Carry three ARCIMS USV with SEASENSE ASW systems on the flight deck, using the 15t crane to handle them.
In both options, carry "Canistered ASW analysis kit" as two 20ft ISO containers mounted on the waist, with Satcom on top.

Heart of this point is "ASW options trials". The result can be retrofitted to T31 (Option-1) and T26s and MHC-LSVs (Option-2). This upgrade needs "more crew" for the two River B2s, for sure. Use 20 of the remaining 100 souls of the lost-T23ASW's crew.

3: To compensate the "loss" of two River B2s, lease two RNZN Otago-class OPVs from 2025 to 2028. Both are in extended readiness because of lack of crew. Use 80 souls left, here.

Otago-class is a merchant-ship standard hull, navigation-radar-only, no CMS, simple patrol vessel, much simpler than River B2. But, she has a smallish (16-18m long) flight deck and a 15-16m long hangar. Being only 85m long, Otago-class OPV cannot be a good helicopter operator in blue water. Actually, RNZN rarely operates their SH-2G on the OPVs. But, they do operate it for Antarctica Islands supply operation, as the water around island is in many cases calm (especially in the down-wind side).

The OPV's flight deck is too small, and not easy to operate even SH-2G, but a Wildcat has a main rotor diameter of 12.8 m, 0.6m smaller than that of SH-2G. So, operating a Wildcat from Otago-class OPV for littoral operation might work. In other words, HADR tasks.

So, use one of them for Caribbean ocean patrol. It has a 15t crane, can carry upto 3 ISO containers, can carry a Wildcat (when needed), and cheap to operate (because of merchant ship standard hull and small displacement). I think it is a perfect match for WIGS. As Otago-class is NOT famous for "long sea-going days", RN may need "more than one" of them to continue WIGS operation for 365 days. But, the 2nd hull will have spare time, so that RN will occasionally be able to use her for general patrol operations, such as shadowing Russian vessels in English channel and North sea, and fishery patrol and border patrol (only in emergency support).

4: On 2028,
- bring back the 2 OPVs to NZ
- convert back the 2 River B2 (ASW trial) to normal OPVs, and utilize the "tested" ASW kits for T26 (6x ASW-USVs) and T31 (2x CAPTAS-2 kits).
- keep RFA Argus as HMS Argus, by reducing the "double crew" rate of T31s. (RFA needs much more crew for 3 FSSS to come)

Just a proposal...

[SD67]

Lifex is a waste of money you may as well build a new platform

A weird fact of British accounting is that CAPEX needs to go the Board but “repair” gets waved through easily so we get ancient platforms repaired forever

[Poiuytrewq]

Just a proposal...

Very interesting.

Why not Enterprise and Echo?

If both LPDs are now both in extended readiness how does that change things?

[new guy]

Just a proposal...

Very interesting.

Why not Enterprise and Echo?

If both LPDs are now both in extended readiness how does that change things?

yes. yes.

[Tempest414]

Parliamentary question reveals HMS Iron Duke LIFEX refit cost whopping £100m (subject to final negotiations with Babcock).
HMS Kent LIFEX - £36M.
HMS Richmond LIFEX including PMGU engine upgrade - £56M
No wonder refitting HMS Westminster a problem.

Coming back to "RN going to lose Westminster in due course".

As she should have been back into service on 2024-2025, RN will be lacking one T23ASW from 2025 to 2028, for 3 years, when HMS Westminster was planned to be decommissioned.
- T26 is delaying so it cannot compensate this, but let's assume it goes "as planned"
- T31 is also delaying (now "capability enhancement period" announced = which means more time needed), but let's assume it goes "as planned"

To make it simple, I shall focus on the issue of, how can RN compensate losing (at least) one T23ASW from 2025 to 2028?

My proposal;

1: Move RFA Argus to RN, and use ~80 souls of the lost-T23ASW's crew there. In place, move the ~80 souls from RFA Argus to RFA Fort Victoria, and make her active until the fist FSSS comes in.

2: Upgrade two of the 5 River B2 with "ASW options trials".
- Option-1: Carry "Canistered" CAPTAS-2 system on the flight deck. Maybe two or three 20ft ISO containers.
- Option-2: Carry three ARCIMS USV with SEASENSE ASW systems on the flight deck, using the 15t crane to handle them.
In both options, carry "Canistered ASW analysis kit" as two 20ft ISO containers mounted on the waist, with Satcom on top.

Heart of this point is "ASW options trials". The result can be retrofitted to T31 (Option-1) and T26s and MHC-LSVs (Option-2). This upgrade needs "more crew" for the two River B2s, for sure. Use 20 of the remaining 100 souls of the lost-T23ASW's crew.

3: To compensate the "loss" of two River B2s, lease two RNZN Otago-class OPVs from 2025 to 2028. Both are in extended readiness because of lack of crew. Use 80 souls left, here.

Otago-class is a merchant-ship standard hull, navigation-radar-only, no CMS, simple patrol vessel, much simpler than River B2. But, she has a smallish (16-18m long) flight deck and a 15-16m long hangar. Being only 85m long, Otago-class OPV cannot be a good helicopter operator in blue water. Actually, RNZN rarely operates their SH-2G on the OPVs. But, they do operate it for Antarctica Islands supply operation, as the water around island is in many cases calm (especially in the down-wind side).

The OPV's flight deck is too small, and not easy to operate even SH-2G, but a Wildcat has a main rotor diameter of 12.8 m, 0.6m smaller than that of SH-2G. So, operating a Wildcat from Otago-class OPV for littoral operation might work. In other words, HADR tasks.

So, use one of them for Caribbean ocean patrol. It has a 15t crane, can carry upto 3 ISO containers, can carry a Wildcat (when needed), and cheap to operate (because of merchant ship standard hull and small displacement). I think it is a perfect match for WIGS. As Otago-class is NOT famous for "long sea-going days", RN may need "more than one" of them to continue WIGS operation for 365 days. But, the 2nd hull will have spare time, so that RN will occasionally be able to use her for general patrol operations, such as shadowing Russian vessels in English channel and North sea, and fishery patrol and border patrol (only in emergency support).

4: On 2028,
- bring back the 2 OPVs to NZ
- convert back the 2 River B2 (ASW trial) to normal OPVs, and utilize the "tested" ASW kits for T26 (6x ASW-USVs) and T31 (2x CAPTAS-2 kits).
- keep RFA Argus as HMS Argus, by reducing the "double crew" rate of T31s. (RFA needs much more crew for 3 FSSS to come)

Just a proposal...

Well we are well use to gaps by now maybe they think they can fill this one with SSN and P-8 maybe the RN need to push on with XLUUV to fill the gap on TAPS

[Repulse]

Just a proposal...

Would definitely agree with moving RFA Argus (+ RFA Stirling Castle and RFA Proteus) to the RN - it’s plainly a position that cannot be sustained.

In terms of covering ASW activities, then I think we should look at the requirements being covered. I see three that are priority:

- TAPS for CASD
- ASW Escorts for the CSG(s)
- Shadowing / deterring Russian subs in the UK EEZ.

Would say that the first two are priority for the remaining ASW T23s and new T26s.

The third is more debatable, and actually if possible adding TASs to Stirling Castle and Proteus could be a better answer than upgrading the B2 Rivers.

Also, all three could be supported by additional MPA and ASW USV/UUV assets - this is where the LIFEX funds could be better spent, as well as speeding up the T26 drumbeat if possible.

In some ways if the T23 fleet drops to 8 before the T26s arrive, with the B2s forward based it’s just a reflection of the future plans we have already and highlights the lack of first rate ASW warships.

[serge750]

Lifex is a waste of money you may as well build a new platform

A weird fact of British accounting is that CAPEX needs to go the Board but “repair” gets waved through easily so we get ancient platforms repaired forever

We should be adding this to the cost of the replacements and then the folly of short term cash decisions and magical £250mn targets will become apparent very quickly.

[Poiuytrewq]

Lifex is a waste of money you may as well build a new platform

A weird fact of British accounting is that CAPEX needs to go the Board but “repair” gets waved through easily so we get ancient platforms repaired forever

We should be adding this to the cost of the replacements and then the folly of short term cash decisions and magical £250mn targets will become apparent very quickly.

By cancelling all LIFEX could the T26 program be accelerated without securing additional funds?

Hundreds of millions on knackered old Frigates is pointless even if another gap is temporarily created.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Just a proposal...

Very interesting.

Why not Enterprise and Echo?

If both LPDs are now both in extended readiness how does that change things?

Thanks. As to replace "T23ASW", the ASW trial must contribute to TAPS and/or CVSG-ASW tasks.

1: Enterprise and Echo, compared to River B2,
- do not carry CMS nor (good) data-link
- do not have military-grade radar, needed to detect SSK/SSN periscope
- too slow (15 kts) to chase SSN. Also not able to travel with CVSG.
- much larger and needs more core-crew to operate them.
So "ASW option" for Enterprise and Echo will be similar to SOSUS/SARTASS replacements, not for TAPS nor CVSG-ASW tasks.

Otago-class OPVs are fast and small and sea-worthy, very good match for Caribbean anti-smuggler and HADR tasks.

2: "If both LPDs are now both in extended readiness how does that change things?"
I think it is only for less than a year, and do not think it is a big problem.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Well we are well use to gaps by now maybe they think they can fill this one with SSN and P-8 maybe the RN need to push on with XLUUV to fill the gap on TAPS

I do not support gaps. It is for 3 years, and it is NOT one of the 8, but it is one of the 5 active ASW frigates (would have been there in rotation) being lost.

And, if RN can do with such condition for 3 years, it means RN do not need 8 ASW frigates. And I think RN needs 8 ASW frigates, (actually 9 are needed, I think). Simple.

SSN = already not enough. And, there is no way adding "one more" by 2025.
P-8 = already not enough. And, there is no way adding "one more" by 2025.
XLUUV is far from ready. No way acquireble by 2025.

[Tempest414]

Well we are well use to gaps by now maybe they think they can fill this one with SSN and P-8 maybe the RN need to push on with XLUUV to fill the gap on TAPS

I do not support gaps. It is for 3 years, and it is NOT one of the 8, but it is one of the 5 active ASW frigates (would have been there in rotation) being lost.

And, if RN can do with such condition for 3 years, it means RN do not need 8 ASW frigates. And I think RN needs 8 ASW frigates, (actually 9 are needed, I think). Simple.

SSN = already not enough. And, there is no way adding "one more" by 2025.
P-8 = already not enough. And, there is no way adding "one more" by 2025.
XLUUV is far from ready. No way acquireble by 2025.

I find this quit strange as in the past you were happy to gap other things

No one is happy with gaps but as said it nothing we are not use to in the UK and this problem is down to us dragging our feet over type 26 and not replacing the 4 Type 22's

I would take your plan of leasing two Otago Class and take it a bit further

1) deploy HMS Severn on AP-N and bring back Medway & Trent to be refitted with new 3d radar , 57mm and TAS
2 ) lease 2 Otago class bring them the UK and fit them with the 2d radars and 30mm form the RB2's
3 ) Bring Spay back to cover Trent and deploy the two leased ships one on AP-N and the other to the Indo-Pacific both with wildcats

New crew for the 2 RB2+'s would be 60 the crew for the new ships would be the same as the RB2's

[Poiuytrewq]

As to replace "T23ASW", the ASW trial must contribute to TAPS and/or CVSG-ASW tasks.

The devil would be in the detail here but if successful surely that would give the T31’s a useful ASW capability which could completely undo current planning, T26/T31/T32?

1: Enterprise and Echo, compared to River B2,
- do not carry CMS nor (good) data-link
- do not have military-grade radar, needed to detect SSK/SSN periscope
- too slow (15 kts) to chase SSN. Also not able to travel with CVSG.
- much larger and needs more core-crew to operate them.
So "ASW option" for Enterprise and Echo will be similar to SOSUS/SARTASS replacements, not for TAPS nor CVSG-ASW tasks.

Your rationale is clear but with a chronic lack of serviceable hulls perhaps RN should be utilising everything that floats or it will be difficult to justify a larger navy down the line.

If the argument runs true for the ASW Frigates then it must also run true for other vessels also.

Otago-class OPVs are fast and small and sea-worthy, very good match for Caribbean anti-smuggler and HADR tasks.

No argument, they are fantastic vessels and it would be useful for RN to operate them before the designing of the next-gen OPVs.

Also if Otago or Wellington was forward deployed to the Caribbean and a Point (with mexeflote embarked) joined temporarily during the hurricane season, would that cover it until the end of the decade? A T31 is OTT for APT(N) IMO.

The second Protector could concentrate on West Africa from Gibraltar freeing up a RB2.

It works but how likely is it that NZ would lease them?

2: "If both LPDs are now both in extended readiness how does that change things?"
I think it is only for less than a year, and do not think it is a big problem.

Not sure. The timing is too politically convenient to be dismissed so readily.

With a crisis in the RFA that does not appear to be abating tough choices need to be made now.

My solution is pretty straightforward and requires no additional vessels, just a reorganisation of what is in the water today.

Putting both LPDs into extended readiness solves lots of problems from a manpower perspective. The RN crew from the LPD could be split between the 3 Bays and Argus.

By relieving a Bay from the Caribbean with an RB2/Point and replacing a Bay in the Gulf with a cheap OSV the 3 Bays are made available for Amphibious Assault. The RFA crews from Argus and the Bays could then get the Waves operational again.

Suddenly the available resources have stretched much further and given RN a massive reach EoS without any additional cost or any reduction of capability in the North Atlantic/JEF.

- North Atlantic, UK EEZ patrol unchanged
- Kipion maintained with T23 and OSV
- APT(N) with RB2 and seasonal Point
- LRG (N) with Bay and PWLS
- LRG (S) with Bay, Wave and Argus at Duqm
- Second Wave at Diego Garcia
- Two RB2’s forward deployed in Indo Pacific
- Bay and RB2 at Gibraltar to patrol Mediterranean, West Africa and occasional patrols to South Atlantic to support FIGS. Also used to support either LRG as required.

Other improvements could be made such as the acquisition of a FLO FLO to increase FCF LCU capacity and LSS conversions to the Bays. Both these would require funding.

IMO this is much more realistic and proactive than current planning. It’s a sticking plaster until 2030 but it’s better than the lost decade that RN is currently enduring.

[Scimitar54]

Poluytrewq Wrote:-

A T31 is OTT for APT(N) IMO.

The West Indies Guard-ship duties may not require a T31. For APT (N) however, a T31 on its own, would (as currently specified) almost certainly be insufficient (T26 required). In a similar way,
The FI Guard-ship (RB2) is not APT (S), which (if it were to be re-constituted, which I believe it should) would require a T31 as a minimum.
Some additional T31s (with enhanced capabilities) may provide a future solution here.

Also
Even though it was once foolishly included in official planning, it has NEVER been realistic to include PWLS as part of LRG (N), or, for that matter LRG (S) either.

These two/three points do require addressing, although I agree with the general direction of travel in what you are trying to achieve.

[SD67]

I personally think we should have split the difference, gone for middle ground between these two, and aimed at a smaller ship in the 4,000t - 5,000t range.

A bit like the T32 then - isn't it supposed to be in the 3500 to 4200t range, similar to the original RFI for the T31?
I agree, though, it would be good if UK PLC had a range of available designs - the gaps currently appear to be between the 2000t River B2 and the A140/T31 as well as in the sub-2000t area. I suspect that the T83 may end up a little bit larger than the T45, simply to accomodate more VLS

A 4000t class hull with the armament as such IS exactly what the T31 class was intended to be. It is simply that, building 5 larger hulls with almost repeating the existing design (IH class), ripping off many of the armaments/sensors, were cheaper than designing a new 4000t class hull and building 5 of them. In general, detailed design and initial production establishment cost as much as 3 unit hull equivalent.

Actually, Babcock cannot design an escort from scratch. Lacks know how. If Babcock teamed up with Atlas UK, not Thales UK, T31 would have been a MEKO A200 derivative, with 3600-4000 t FLD hull.

T31 is NOT too lightly armed compared to its size. It just adopted too large hull for the required equipment. Not saying it is bad. Just saying the fact.

Personally I don’t see any real drawbacks with the T31’s size - it’s kind of a return to the old “”Colonial Cruiser / Global sloop “ concept. In the short term we have a frigate with long legs, in the medium term they can be up armed if required.

Being size constrained has caused the RN a great deal of pain over the years - t21, T42, Invincible.

In terms of a gap in the portfolio for UK PLC yes it would be good to have a modern version of an Al Khareef to offer. It would have to be Babcock because BAEs cost structure is not competitive at that end of the market. They could collaborate on the design with OMT, Vard, or BMT In a perfect world Ukraine would be launch customer IMO

[donald_of_tokyo]

Well we are well use to gaps by now maybe they think they can fill this one with SSN and P-8 maybe the RN need to push on with XLUUV to fill the gap on TAPS

I do not support gaps. It is for 3 years, and it is NOT one of the 8, but it is one of the 5 active ASW frigates (would have been there in rotation) being lost.

And, if RN can do with such condition for 3 years, it means RN do not need 8 ASW frigates. And I think RN needs 8 ASW frigates, (actually 9 are needed, I think). Simple.

SSN = already not enough. And, there is no way adding "one more" by 2025.
P-8 = already not enough. And, there is no way adding "one more" by 2025.
XLUUV is far from ready. No way acquireble by 2025.

I find this quit strange as in the past you were happy to gap other things

Oh, what gap I admitted?

"19 escorts on paper, 12 active" changed to "17 escorts on paper, 12 active" is NO GAP. And, one frigate gaped out of 12 active escort is only 8% gap. Gaping one active ASW escort out of five is a 20% gap. Huge.

No one is happy with gaps but as said it nothing we are not use to in the UK and this problem is down to us dragging our feet over type 26 and not replacing the 4 Type 22's

Type-22's are not ASW frigate, and it is 4 of the 23 escorts of the day, not 20% of the ASW escorts.

I would take your plan of leasing two Otago Class and take it a bit further

1) deploy HMS Severn on AP-N and bring back Medway & Trent to be refitted with new 3d radar , 57mm and TAS
2 ) lease 2 Otago class bring them the UK and fit them with the 2d radars and 30mm form the RB2's
3 ) Bring Spay back to cover Trent and deploy the two leased ships one on AP-N and the other to the Indo-Pacific both with wildcats

New crew for the 2 RB2+'s would be 60 the crew for the new ships would be the same as the RB2's

You plan is not un-logical. But, my plan is to full the temporal gap of HMS Westminster. No permanent upgrade on either River B2 nor Otago-class.

item-1: Up-arming two of the five River B2 is one idea. Adding TAS means losing flight deck, so I propose to make it temporal.

item-2: If you upgrade Otago-class with "2d radars and 30mm form the RB2's", you need to bring it back to the same standard before giving them back. Waste of money. RNZN will be "unhappy" with upgraded radar, because it will need more maintenance load/cost.

[SW1]

Type 22 frigates absolutely were asw frigates.

As for priorities if your first is the CASD and it’s protection then that is where you assign your asw assets design for deep ocean anti ssn hunting. The rest is secondary.

If you consider the leaving and arrivals of your ssbns and your underwater national infrastructure as a security priory then that is the next place you assign you specialist asw assets the rest in secondary. When these are covered you can then decide if you have a the budget or b the ships to do anything else.



While the ship assigned to the Caribbean covers disaster relief it is there for the counter narcotics and trafficking interception, This has been historically frigate due to the sensor requirements for situational awareness the ability to embark RM and or US coastguard boarding teams with both airborne sniper teams and ribs. Something we have to varying degrees chose to gap over the last few years a role for which type 31 is ideally suited especially as regional navy’s are acquiring technology principally from Iran and likely China to aid in there “trade”

[donald_of_tokyo]

As to replace "T23ASW", the ASW trial must contribute to TAPS and/or CVSG-ASW tasks.

The devil would be in the detail here but if successful surely that would give the T31’s a useful ASW capability which could completely undo current planning, T26/T31/T32?

I do not think so. River B2 with CAPTAS-2 nor ARCIMS SeaSense will never replace T23/26ASW. Just compensate it, at most.

Otago-class OPVs are fast and small and sea-worthy, very good match for Caribbean anti-smuggler and HADR tasks.

No argument, they are fantastic vessels and it would be useful for RN to operate them before the designing of the next-gen OPVs.

Also if Otago or Wellington was forward deployed to the Caribbean and a Point (with mexeflote embarked) joined temporarily during the hurricane season, would that cover it until the end of the decade? A T31 is OTT for APT(N) IMO.

Not sure about Points. Point-class's figure-of-merit is being a freighter, operated by very lean crew. Not a good asset for HADR.

It works but how likely is it that NZ would lease them?

That is the point.

I think UK shall link this lease with "T31 for RNZN". Now Protector class OPVs are maintained by Babcock NZ in its Devonport (NZ) dockyard. T31 is made by Babcock UK.

Another possibility is to utilize one of the Protector class OPV at "south east Asia/Oceania", and only one at Caribbean ocean. This will make Polynesian nations "feel" still supported by NZ Navy, while their government will "understand" it is actually UK warship. Dual meaning. In this case, NZ will be able to keep its "presence" in the region. (Of course, in this case, UK shall propose to "reduce" the lease cost, because it is virtually "RN providing the crew for a RNZN OPV").

Anyway, making it politically attractive, is important.

Putting both LPDs into extended readiness solves lots of problems from a manpower perspective. The RN crew from the LPD could be split between the 3 Bays and Argus. ...

Interesting proposal. But, it shall be first lead by "how to reform amphibious fleet".

[donald_of_tokyo]

Type 22 frigates absolutely were asw frigates.

I was talking about the 4 T22B3, lost in 2010. They even not had TASS. The T22B2s lost more earlier is, yes, ASW frigates.

As for priorities if your first is the CASD and it’s protection then that is where you assign your asw assets design for deep ocean anti ssn hunting. The rest is secondary.

If you consider the leaving and arrivals of your ssbns and your underwater national infrastructure as a security priory then that is the next place you assign you specialist asw assets the rest in secondary. When these are covered you can then decide if you have a the budget or b the ships to do anything else.

Not sure what you mean. Your argument is understandable, and RN says they need 8 ASW escorts (and nine P-8As) to cover their duty. And, losing HMS Westminster will mean losing one of the five active ASW frigates in 2025-2028 period. I am talking about how to fill this gap. Simple.

While the ship assigned to the Caribbean covers disaster relief it is there for the counter narcotics and trafficking interception, This has been historically frigate due to the sensor requirements for situational awareness the ability to embark RM and or US coastguard boarding teams with both airborne sniper teams and ribs. Something we have to varying degrees chose to gap over the last few years a role for which type 31 is ideally suited especially as regional navy’s are acquiring technology principally from Iran and likely China to aid in there “trade”

I think RNZN Protector class OPV is almost a perfect match in the Caribbean sea. WIGS was covered by Bays and Waves, frequently. Neither of them has good radar. Protector class OPV has additional accommodation (can host USCG team), can carry a Wildcat, and is 25knots fast. Best suited for "counter narcotics and trafficking interception", and well equipped for "HADR", I think.

Using T31 for WIGS is not bad, but this is temporal solution from 2025-2028, in which none of the T31 will be available for WIGS. (The first hull shall go to KIPION, and the 2nd-hull will NOT be operational by then, I guess).

[SW1]

Type 22 frigates absolutely were asw frigates.

I was talking about the 4 T22B3, lost in 2010. They even not had TASS. The T22B2s lost more earlier is, yes, ASW frigates.

As for priorities if your first is the CASD and it’s protection then that is where you assign your asw assets design for deep ocean anti ssn hunting. The rest is secondary.

If you consider the leaving and arrivals of your ssbns and your underwater national infrastructure as a security priory then that is the next place you assign you specialist asw assets the rest in secondary. When these are covered you can then decide if you have a the budget or b the ships to do anything else.

Not sure what you mean. Your argument is understandable, and RN says they need 8 ASW escorts (and nine P-8As) to cover their duty. And, losing HMS Westminster will mean losing one of the five active ASW frigates in 2025-2028 period. I am talking about how to fill this gap. Simple.

While the ship assigned to the Caribbean covers disaster relief it is there for the counter narcotics and trafficking interception, This has been historically frigate due to the sensor requirements for situational awareness the ability to embark RM and or US coastguard boarding teams with both airborne sniper teams and ribs. Something we have to varying degrees chose to gap over the last few years a role for which type 31 is ideally suited especially as regional navy’s are acquiring technology principally from Iran and likely China to aid in there “trade”

I think RNZN Protector class OPV is almost a perfect match in the Caribbean sea. WIGS was covered by Bays and Waves, frequently. Neither of them has good radar. Protector class OPV has additional accommodation (can host USCG team), can carry a Wildcat, and is 25knots fast. Best suited for "counter narcotics and trafficking interception", and well equipped for "HADR", I think.

Using T31 for WIGS is not bad, but this is temporal solution from 2025-2028, in which none of the T31 will be available for WIGS. (The first hull shall go to KIPION, and the 2nd-hull will NOT be operational by then, I guess).

The batch 3 type 22 frigates were a fully capable asw frigate with a comprehensive sigint capability as well. They were at that time regarded as the best escorts in the Royal Navy. They were however manpower intensive.

The RN has over the last 15 years significantly removed asw capability from the surface fleet particularly trained personnel leaving it largely to the submarine fleet they are now reversing.

My point is you cover those two initial priorities fully and nationally first as they are by far the most important, if that mean only a single asw frigate sails with the carrier in the interim so be it or an allied country added to that carrier group that’s the choice it is not Gerry rig something unsuited into a temporary role.

My point in terms of the Caribbean patrol was we have gapped requirements around that deployment for sometime like we have gapped the frigate requirement in the south Atlantic. Wave had the hanger and embarked helicopter but lacked the speed and sensors to fully fulfil the task. It was not that long ago that both these tasks were meet with a frigate and a rover class tanker on station for full coverage.

If you have a priority toward our overseas territories then we should increase them up the priority list and assign a frigate to protect them rather than send them or other things elsewhere.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The batch 3 type 22 frigates were a fully capable asw frigate with a comprehensive sigint capability as well. They were at that time regarded as the best escorts in the Royal Navy. They were however manpower intensive.

Potentially ASW capable, but like the T23GPs, T22B3 never carried a TASS. Understandable, because T23 is much more quiet than T22. This is why I say not an ASW frigate. Don’t get me wrong. Following RN from 1990s, I really loved T22B3s. They were very well balanced, Sigint-capable, group command capable frigates.

… if that mean only a single asw frigate sails with the carrier in the interim so be it or an allied country added to that carrier group that’s the choice it is not Gerry rig something unsuited into a temporary role.

No big objection, my ASW River B2 trial is the least thought part of my three proposals combined.

How about the other two? “HMS” Argus, and RNZN OPV lease?

My point in terms of the Caribbean patrol was we have gapped requirements around that deployment for sometime like we have gapped the frigate requirement in the south Atlantic. Wave had the hanger and embarked helicopter but lacked the speed and sensors to fully fulfil the task. It was not that long ago that both these tasks were meet with a frigate and a rover class tanker on station for full coverage.

If you have a priority toward our overseas territories then we should increase them up the priority list and assign a frigate to protect them rather than send them or other things elsewhere.

No big objection, but I do think there are good rationale for not using frigates in both APT N and S.

Argentina military threat has been almost zero for decades. Now with QE CVs operational, even less need for a frigate. A CV air wing with 24 F35B in 2023 is by far more powerful than 50 Harrier/ SeaHarrier air wing in 1982.

WIGS is a task any type of vessels, as fast as ~20 knots, can contribute. (including 18 knots Bay and 19 knots Wave). What is important in anti-smuggler operations there is, it is an allied operation, not an UK only one. When a GP frigate is available, RN can send it. It will be good for tropical condition training, and also good for crew morale, as I think it is more lovely place than north atlantic.

Before 2010, APT-N and S, both, were escorts. FIGS was an independent OPV. And yes there were Rover-class AOL. Reduction of escort number from 23 to 19, and reduction of “escort average sea-going days by 25-33% after 2010” (yes, not only the escort number, but also individual activity level has been reduced, significantly. Stealth cut), combined, was the direct reason to cut (not gap) APT-S, APT-N, and south east Asian FPDA escort.

[Scimitar54]

If you have a requirement to deploy an Escort (Frigate) to an Ocean (or a part of it) then you have a requirement to do so. The fact that you then (separately) suffer a reduction in the number of Escorts (Frigates) available (due to cuts in HMG defence funding) does not remove that requirement..

The thinking of some people if taken to its logical conclusion seems to be that we should only have one Frigate and then never deploy it because we must have a FRE.

Requirements exist and if insufficient numbers of whatever (in this case Frigates) are provided and available then unacceptable risks are being taken with the nation’s defences.

[donald_of_tokyo]

If you have a requirement to deploy an Escort (Frigate) to an Ocean (or a part of it) then you have a requirement to do so. The fact that you then (separately) suffer a reduction in the number of Escorts (Frigates) available (due to cuts in HMG defence funding) does not remove that requirement..

The thinking of some people if taken to its logical conclusion seems to be that we should only have one Frigate and then never deploy it because we must have a FRE.

Requirements exist and if insufficient numbers of whatever (in this case Frigates) are provided and available then unacceptable risks are being taken with the nation’s defences.

For me, it is "wishes" not "requirement". As an engineer trained with Systems Engineering, "requirement" is much more strict. I guess, just the "definition of word" differs among Systems Engineers and other folks

[donald_of_tokyo]

Personally I don’t see any real drawbacks with the T31’s size - it’s kind of a return to the old “”Colonial Cruiser / Global sloop “ concept. In the short term we have a frigate with long legs, in the medium term they can be up armed if required.

Being size constrained has caused the RN a great deal of pain over the years - t21, T42, Invincible.

And, that was the reason RN had 8 T21 and 14 T42 and 3 Invincible and 1 Ocean. At these days, still the ship-system cost was higher than warfighting systems cost, larger hull requires larger crew and hence even large hull. Ship size was a clear cost driver, and NATO navies needed as many escort as possible to counter USSR SSN threat. Also, rapid evolution of sensors and armaments meant newer hulls always needed, and older hulls being "2nd-rate escort". So, small and numerous was the aim, not a drawback, I understand.

LATER, after the cold war ended, these assets are said to be too small. No rapid evolution of sensors and armaments and low sea-going days meant longer hull life, and then, modernization to "keep it as a 1st-rate escort" came to be important, not using it as a 2nd-rate escort. To do this, yes hull size matters.

My point on T31 is just saying that "T31 is too less armed for its size" is not true. "T31 adopted too large hull compared to its (original) requirement". This is just a fact. At current condition, having larger hull on T31 turned out to be helpful for RN to think about more up-arming (like adding Mk41 VLS) later. So, it turned out to be good. HOWEVER, as the man-power shortage is becoming the dominant limitation of RN, smaller hull with smaller crew should have been also "not so bad".

In terms of a gap in the portfolio for UK PLC yes it would be good to have a modern version of an Al Khareef to offer. It would have to be Babcock because BAEs cost structure is not competitive at that end of the market. They could collaborate on the design with OMT, Vard, or BMT In a perfect world Ukraine would be launch customer IMO

How about BMT Venator 110? It was originally a 3500t vessel. In the later days, it became fatter and become a 4000t vessel. Original 3500t FLD Venator 110 should have been a good starter for this slot, I guess.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The reality is that the current defence budget is higher than what is needed in peacetime to defend immediate UK territory - therefore there is budget to do more than this but not a lot. Until HMG / MOD have a clear prioritised list of what they want to try and achieve with this budget and the services say we can do this and no more, then everything will remain f*cked.

Also, that “what we can do” must reflect what is the real budget, not optimistic budget of jam tomorrow where projects are started without guarantees that the money will be there when the time comes (stopping stupid short term decisions to balance budgets).

Why is this relevant? Because a lot of what we are talking about is the priority between the ability to have significant global conventional effect deployed from the UK (let’s call it CEPP) and having forward based assets that have a significant military effect in a region to push UK interests (let’s refer to it as Frigates rather than OPVs).

We cannot afford both - the priority has to be clear and the line drawn. It can only be changed when real money is added and then only over a period of time.