Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[wargame_insomniac]

It is interesting to look back on the T31e RFI.

- Exports and the National Ship Building strategy is as prominent as RN requirements. If all that has been discussed come true then it has been a success. You could argue that other designs could have done the same and the T26 has been a bigger export success than expected, but credit where credit is due. Giving the RN stamp of approval for the design was key, however this is now done and is not a justification in itself to buy more.

Partly agree. If you look at the original NSS, it quotes “build export”, not design export, to keep the UK shipyards working. And, to that end, the only build export is the missile boat for Ukrainian navy (but it has been silent for a year or two, so I’m afraid it may vanish).

So, almost zero success on that regards. Very difficult status now UK ship builders are.

I was hoping for T31 for NZ, to be built in UK. But recent roumor of Australian built T31 possibility will kill that hope…

Then, what hope? Ukraine T31?

Agreed. I don't view the T31 as an export success, for the reasons that have commented on several times in this thread.However you summed it up more succintly than I did - "build export" would have kept Rosyth shipyard busy and the more ships that Babcock build, the quicker /better they should be at construction, thus keeping overall build costs down.

"Design export" would obviously benefit Babcock UK and any future ongoing consultancy / maintenance contracts they won would have helped them too, but neither benefits the RN. There might be some additional work to wider UK supply chain if some components are needed for Polish and Indonesian builds.

Anyway I guess given the rut that British shipbuilding was in (e.g. the Tide-class tankers being built in Korea with no percentage of local UK build), it was probably too much to expect more than baby steps at starting to restablish our international reputation. Hopefully this is a start upon which they can build further on in the future.

[wargame_insomniac]

Let me have ago in the first part you are putting a 5 billion budget in place of which 2 billion has been spent on the first 5 leaving a 3 billion budget….

I think the final cost will be in that region.

T31 5x @400m = £2bn
T32 5x @500m = £2.5bn
Design cost for T32 = £500m


Without a change in direction it’s perfectly plausible to think that BAE would have built the 12x T26 (8xASW, 5xGP) for £12bn-£13bn.

If RN ends up with:
- 8x T26
- 8x T31 GP (57mm, 2x40mm, 24 CAMM, 32x Mk41) @£400m unit cost
- 8x HiCap OPV (57mm, 2x40mm, Artisan) @£225 unit cost. RB3 or Vard 7 313 etc.

It’s a massive result.

Whether or not RN could find the crews to operate them is another question entirely.

Don't want to get into first part as hard to guesstimate T32 costs if we don't even know what the intended missions and design concept is.

On the second part, it is possible that RN might want to keep maybe half of the T31s un-upgraded to keep costs and crew requirements as low as possible for the patrol missions. Even if not, then I suspect any upgrades would be gradual process, starting with any T31 Batch 2s and then doing the Batch 1s once they are in for a refit.

[wargame_insomniac]

Poiuytrewq wrote

8x HiCap OPV (57mm, 2x40mm, Artisan) @£225 unit cost. RB3 or Vard 7 313 etc.

For me this is a Escort fit on a OPV . I see SAAB x1 radar and 4 x 40mm as being a good fit for a OPV plus I feel a OPV should not cost more than 150 million

Yes the RB2's were a little over this due to TOBA

IMO, £200m programme cost for opv- OPV hi-cap
£400m programme cost for T31 / T32

with a push however, imagine for £5bn 6 T31B2 and 12 hi-cap OPV.

Do we need that many hi-cap OPV?

I would argue that we definitely would make good use of 6, based maybe 3 in Gibralter (to cover Med, West Africa) and maybe 3 in Oman (to cover East Africa, Indian Ocean), which should ensure that at least two are at sea at any one time.

And I maintain we still need at least 4 lo-cap OPVs, at around 80m length, commercial design, for replacing RB1s in UK waters.

[new guy]

Then, what hope? Ukraine T31?

I can't see T31 being a sensible acquisition for Ukraine, just do not see it being survivable in Black Sea conflict given the Russian Kilos in those waters and the large nearby aviation presence with many aircraft tasked with maritime interdiction. Hell, Ukraine's naval drones are calling into question the survivability of Russia's own surface vessels in the Black Sea.

IMO what Ukraine needs is the sort of FAC and corvettes that are vogue in the Baltic and around Scandinavian coastlines. The ability to sortie at high speed but a low radar profile, fire some missiles at whatever target, beat a hasty retreat at high speed and then hide until the next mission.

Yes; Ukraine isn't global, it needs fast survivable ships that are also patrol vessels that can perform constabulary and OPV tasks. Corvettes work well for them, FAC even better.

[new guy]

Poiuytrewq wrote

8x HiCap OPV (57mm, 2x40mm, Artisan) @£225 unit cost. RB3 or Vard 7 313 etc.

For me this is a Escort fit on a OPV . I see SAAB x1 radar and 4 x 40mm as being a good fit for a OPV plus I feel a OPV should not cost more than 150 million

Yes the RB2's were a little over this due to TOBA

IMO, £200m programme cost for opv- OPV hi-cap
£400m programme cost for T31 / T32

with a push however, imagine for £5bn 6 T31B2 and 12 hi-cap OPV.

Do we need that many hi-cap OPV?

I would argue that we definitely would make good use of 6, based maybe 3 in Gibralter (to cover Med, West Africa) and maybe 3 in Oman (to cover East Africa, Indian Ocean), which should ensure that at least two are at sea at any one time.

And I maintain we still need at least 4 lo-cap OPVs, at around 80m length, commercial design, for replacing RB1s in UK waters.

I agree RB1 replacement needs to be small.

I argue that 12 would not be an overly bullish number considering that it would cover a multitude of roles; Royal marine light, anti-piracy, MCM, OPV roles, humanitarian aid, and whatever the PODS added enable.

[Repulse]

I agree RB1 replacement needs to be small.

I’d argue that it needs to be at least the same as a B2 River - these ships are less needed for fisheries and more to contribute to maritime security in our EEZ. The Merlin capable deck, sensor fit, speed and endurance are all needed. Also, the same number as now - two plus one for basic training (freeing up other ships).

The question given the likely B2 route is what replaces these globally. Some say T31s, I say there are higher priority needs, and I would argue either three B3s stretched with Wildcat/UAV hangars or going back to another thread look at what the Dutch are doing to replace their Holland OPVs (which is rumoured to overlap with their amphibious replacements).

[Poiuytrewq]

…look at what the Dutch are doing to replace their Holland OPVs (which is rumoured to overlap with their amphibious replacements).

Its not really a rumour.

Here is a quote from the Dutch Chief of Defence. "The Marine Corps will have its own fire support. The transport and patrol vessels will move to one vessel that is smaller in size and less vulnerable. We are adding unmanned systems to that."

https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Defensi ... 10622.html

It’s pretty clear what the direction of travel is here but is the UK collaborating on MRSS or T32? Has MRSS and the T32 requirements effectively now been amalgamated?

…”the amphibious transport ships and four patrol vessels will be replaced by one type of ship suitable for conducting amphibious operations and maritime patrols and for providing emergency assistance”…

https://english.defensie.nl/binaries/de ... r+2022.pdf

From the UK perspective:

….”Statement of Intent will see the partner nations working together to understand respective joint requirements and expected timelines for the UK MRSS and Dutch Landing Platform, to help assess whether a collaborative procurement programme would be mutually beneficial.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-a ... lationship

The Dutch need the first replacement vessel to be operational by 2030 so a finalised design really needs to take shape within 2 years. The Dutch and UK T32 timelines are virtually identical.

[Phil Sayers]

I suggested something very similar on here only a few weeks ago but it definitely did not find favour - to me it is something of a no-brainer that it would be useful for a mothership to be able to provide fire support ashore when the RM it has deployed are conducting a raid but the situation calls for more firepower than they can physically carry. However, that did not seem a popular view (or perhaps more that it would be a programme threatening unnecessary expense when my view is instead that lack of such a capability could really restrict the operations that could be conducted from such a ship).

[donald_of_tokyo]

…look at what the Dutch are doing to replace their Holland OPVs (which is rumoured to overlap with their amphibious replacements).

Its not really a rumour.

Here is a quote from the Dutch Chief of Defence. "The Marine Corps will have its own fire support. The transport and patrol vessels will move to one vessel that is smaller in size and less vulnerable. We are adding unmanned systems to that."

https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Defensi ... 10622.html

It’s pretty clear what the direction of travel is here but is the UK collaborating on MRSS or T32? Has MRSS and the T32 requirements effectively now been amalgamated?

…”the amphibious transport ships and four patrol vessels will be replaced by one type of ship suitable for conducting amphibious operations and maritime patrols and for providing emergency assistance”…

https://english.defensie.nl/binaries/de ... r+2022.pdf

From the UK perspective:

….”Statement of Intent will see the partner nations working together to understand respective joint requirements and expected timelines for the UK MRSS and Dutch Landing Platform, to help assess whether a collaborative procurement programme would be mutually beneficial.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-a ... lationship

The Dutch need the first replacement vessel to be operational by 2030 so a finalised design really needs to take shape within 2 years. The Dutch and UK T32 timelines are virtually identical.

I suggested something very similar on here only a few weeks ago but it definitely did not find favour - to me it is something of a no-brainer that it would be useful for a mothership to be able to provide fire support ashore when the RM it has deployed are conducting a raid but the situation calls for more firepower than they can physically carry. However, that did not seem a popular view (or perhaps more that it would be a programme threatening unnecessary expense when my view is instead that lack of such a capability could really restrict the operations that could be conducted from such a ship).

Interesting points. How to handle "its own fire support" will dictate the cost and thus the number.

Practically speaking, looking at Damen web site, it will be Crossover-type (like Absalon, a light frigate with small amphibious capability) or Enforcer-type (adding a gun on Bay or Amsterdam). Of course, Crossover-type can also be "only with a gun".

Another option will be to add CAMM or not. Note that even River B2 has a CMS, Holland-class has a CMS, and T31 and T26 have CMS. Modern CMS are all "scalable" and how much complex it is (=how much weapons and sensors carried) will dictate the cost, because systems integration is the most costy part.

If all MRSS to carry CAMM, I think its number will significantly be reduced. See T31, how it costs. There is no reason "MRSS with a 5inch gun and 12-24 CAMM" can be cheaper than a T31. Imagine adding a well-dock or Cross-over deck to T31, with significant internal space for logistic supply. It will cost.

If we imagine MRSS to be like Absalon-class, it will be too expensive and not enough ship-to-shore connectors. Compared to T31, speed will be much slower as 20knots, but it will be fine for the task.

But I guess we shall move this discussion to amphibious thread...

[Repulse]

But I guess we shall move this discussion to amphibious thread...

Yes, but I think we shouldn’t forget the hybrid nature of any ship. I would be in favour to add a small cheap class of MHPCA (A for Amphibious) to replace three of the B2 Rivers to replace the B1s. However, this would be in addition to 2-3 LPDs, these would be for sub company deployments. Also, I would not be in favour to call it a frigate, nor for it to have more than a standard OPV sensor and weapon fit - otherwise once again we will get distracted from making higher priorities work.

[Tempest414]

But I guess we shall move this discussion to amphibious thread...

Yes, but I think we shouldn’t forget the hybrid nature of any ship. I would be in favour to add a small cheap class of MHPCA (A for Amphibious) to replace three of the B2 Rivers to replace the B1s. However, this would be in addition to 2-3 LPDs, these would be for sub company deployments. Also, I would not be in favour to call it a frigate, nor for it to have more than a standard OPV sensor and weapon fit - otherwise once again we will get distracted from making higher priorities work.

Already post over there

[Poiuytrewq]

Credit where credit is due.

There has been a noticeable difference in recent years.

[new guy]

even more

[Poiuytrewq]

Very nice!!!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-ima ... will-look/

Given the snails pace T26 build, there must be additional plans to utilise the extra capacity?

[Poiuytrewq]

Very nice!!!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-ima ... will-look/

Given the snails pace T26 build, there must be additional plans to utilise the extra capacity?

I was told that options are being explored to do so.

[Poiuytrewq]

I was told that options are being explored to do so.

Thanks.

Additional T26 or the Adaptable Strike Frigate for the T32?

[Anthony58]

I was told by BAE, a year ago that there was more than a four year gap between the eighth Type 26 and the first type 83, makes sense to build another three frigates, with a medium air defence radar capability added and additional 24 VLS cells added for Aster 30 Block 1, if Type 45 are decommissioned by 2037 and the last three of the eight, to have that capability.

[Repulse]

Additional T26 or the Adaptable Strike Frigate for the T32?

Please less marketing and more useful T26s

[wargame_insomniac]

I was told that options are being explored to do so.

Thanks.

Additional T26 or the Adaptable Strike Frigate for the T32?

BAE made clear to me that the company, in addition to Royal Navy work, has ambitions for further export programmes with ships not just being designed on the Clyde for other countries but ships actually being built on the Clyde and exported to other countries.

[Jdam]

I was told by BAE, a year ago that there was more than a four year gap between the eighth Type 26 and the first type 83, makes sense to build another three frigates, with a medium air defence radar capability added and additional 24 VLS cells added for Aster 30 Block 1, if Type 45 are decommissioned by 2037 and the last three of the eight, to have that capability.

I think continuing with more ASW ships (type 26's) might be the better option.

[Anthony58]

The three additional ships I mentioned, I should have made clear, in my opinion were Type 26, so we would end up with 11.

[Poiuytrewq]

BAE made clear to me that the company, in addition to Royal Navy work, has ambitions for further export programmes with ships not just being designed on the Clyde for other countries but ships actually being built on the Clyde and exported to other countries.

Fantastic ambition but where are the designs?

Damen, Naval, Fincantieri and Vard etc all have extensive catalogues of cutting edge designs at highly competitive prices.

What is BAE going to offer?

[new guy]

More T26, or early start + more T83. Or OPV carryover work. Trying to make T26 more AAW isn't worth it IMO.

[wargame_insomniac]

More T26, or early start + more T83. Or OPV carryover work. Trying to make T26 more AAW isn't worth it IMO.

Agreed - beyond adding Mk41 VLS which could carry a variety of missiles, including AAW.

I have said before I would like a minimum of 1 extra for T26 (and T31) to keep the shipyard ticking over until we have some more clarity on what Defence Budget will be and what the Defence priorities are. And for greater resilience / redundancy to ensure sufficient number ships ready for active service / at high readiness.

Of course if the Budget can stretch beyond just one extra T26, then presumably it would have also stretched to higher pay rises and improved housing accomodation, thereby improving crew recruitment and retention, because otherwise we are going to struggle to crew the exisiting ships let alone any new ones....

[Anthony58]

I have several worries, one that if we have a gap in medium air defence if Type 45 is retired before at least two Type 83 are fully operational and another one is accepted from BAE. Building an extra three Type 26 would mean increasing the size of the Royal Navy total personnel, it would also allow BAE to maintain the workforce before the start of Type 83. Babcock have told me they will not bid on Type 83. The new radar could be the one used by France and Italy on their upgrade of there four Horizon warships or another radar. The procurement cost is post 2030, The RAN and Canadian Type 26 have a medium air defence capability.