Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SW1]

These aren’t really opvs they are patrol frigates and you won’t get them cheaper than what we are paying for type 31 which could do exactly the same thing.

But the T31 is a terrible platform for operating USV/UUVs the Rivers can do more already. It does this poor job with over twice the crew. There are many platforms that can do it MCM / constabulary patrolling better than a T31. The T31 needed to be a General Purpose war fighting frigate, let’s make it that and stop the dreaming that the UK should afford forward basing frigates it can’t afford.

That’s just nonsense

[Repulse]

These aren’t really opvs they are patrol frigates and you won’t get them cheaper than what we are paying for type 31 which could do exactly the same thing.

But the T31 is a terrible platform for operating USV/UUVs the Rivers can do more already. It does this poor job with over twice the crew. There are many platforms that can do it MCM / constabulary patrolling better than a T31. The T31 needed to be a General Purpose war fighting frigate, let’s make it that and stop the dreaming that the UK should afford forward basing frigates it can’t afford.

That’s just nonsense

No it’s not. How many USVs and of what size are you expecting to operate from a T31? Forward deploying frigates is a choice - it defines perfectly what you call “Flag waving and assigning assets to it, is for a decadent department awash with cash” - let’s move on from the 19th / 20th century way of thinking shall we.

[SW1]

These aren’t really opvs they are patrol frigates and you won’t get them cheaper than what we are paying for type 31 which could do exactly the same thing.

But the T31 is a terrible platform for operating USV/UUVs the Rivers can do more already. It does this poor job with over twice the crew. There are many platforms that can do it MCM / constabulary patrolling better than a T31. The T31 needed to be a General Purpose war fighting frigate, let’s make it that and stop the dreaming that the UK should afford forward basing frigates it can’t afford.

That’s just nonsense

No it’s not. How many USVs and of what size are you expecting to operate from a T31? Forward deploying frigates is a choice - it defines perfectly what you call “Flag waving and assigning assets to it, is for a decadent department awash with cash” - let’s move on from the 19th / 20th century way of thinking shall we.

All the ones you would put on a river and then some.

We fwd deploy frigates largely to take part in multinational surface task groups. They remain the optimal way to contribute to security missions for nations that aren’t the USN. That hasn’t changed and is unlikely to unless we stop moving things by sea.

[Repulse]

All the ones you would put on a river and then some.

We fwd deploy frigates largely to take part in multinational surface task groups. They remain the optimal way to contribute to security missions for nations that aren’t the USN. That hasn’t changed and is unlikely to unless we stop moving things by sea.

How many? Put some facts on the table.

Outside of Kipion the UK hasn’t forward based frigates for decades, there is no need to start now - we need to focus on getting the war fighting task groups working rather than having colonial delusions.

[SW1]

All the ones you would put on a river and then some.

We fwd deploy frigates largely to take part in multinational surface task groups. They remain the optimal way to contribute to security missions for nations that aren’t the USN. That hasn’t changed and is unlikely to unless we stop moving things by sea.

How many? Put some facts on the table.

Outside of Kipion the UK hasn’t forward based frigates for decades, there is no need to start now - we need to focus on getting the war fighting task groups working rather than having colonial delusions.

Well how about you put some facts on it first. What are the unmanned vessels being deployed from a river? Which is where you started this from.

The uk have for decades and continues to, fwd deployed frigates or destroyers to the two NATO standing maritime groups, too both the uk Atlantic patrol task north and south and in support to combined naval task forces in the Arabian Sea.

The warfighting task group is simply a carrier (imo the lpd too) and 3 or 4 frigates or destroyers it is a one shot, time limited offer and it will always be so for the uk we are not nor should be attempting to the US navy.

[Tempest414]

Then get a normal OSV. Adding heli deck, multi-role hangar, patrol speeds, weapons, higher standards, don't help.

There is no need for single role platforms - the radar, speeds and weapons are very modest and would be the minimum required if there was a conflict and these assets still needed to operate even with an umbrella of resources providing security.

The Kership class shows the opportunity to get a modest multi-role ship built in mass at less than £100mn per unit.

I agree, just you need to be moderate otherwise it's value compaired to a OSV+T31+RB2 is lost.
an MPHC programme must be limited to OPV, survey and MCM taskings otherwise if you start going higher up you start building an corvette, which is just a good way to get more expensive than the prior single role combo.

Corvettes are under-rated frigates for a similar price.
Keeping FFBNW features a do support, such as a CIWS mounts like on the RFA's and LMM mounts, PODS for TAS, e.c.t, but not to be operated in that way.

Also on my wish list is some SIGNT ships like &&

What am I looking for well am looking for a bigger better RB2 which is a ship which has a good radar , good CMS , flight/ mission deck. Everything eleas is a mission package so a RM boarding team is mission package , Wildcat is mission package , U-MCM is a mission package , Containerized TAS is a mission package and these packages can be used on other ships and some from land bases

[shark bait]

The above is what the B2s should have been. Unfortunately that's not what got built, and the time has now passed, with Royal Navy making the most out of the OPVs they have.

Into the future, MHPC does not exist anymore, the Navy consider part P satisfied with new OPVs, and is moving forward with the MHC project.

[Tempest414]

The above is what the B2s should have been. Unfortunately that's not what got built, and the time has now passed, with Royal Navy making the most out of the OPVs they have.

Into the future, MHPC does not exist anymore, the Navy consider part P satisfied with new OPVs, and is moving forward with the MHC project.

That may or may not be right to be fair they have added some second hand civvi ships as a good stop gap but when asked what he wanted to grow the fleet the SL said MRSS and OPV's so maybe he is looking at type 32 and thinking 2 or 3 more T-31 and 4 more OPV's more ships same crew requirement

[Poiuytrewq]

Devils in the detail but it’s difficult to see what assets RN would have regularly available to do this before the T31’s replace the RB2s.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... y-patrols/

A RN OPV is simply not suitable for the proposed deployment. Is this the reason why they are joint patrols - so that the ROK can escort the RN OPV?

At this stage, given the condition of the escort fleet, this looks like a commitment too far before the 2030’s.

The industrial element is interesting on multiple levels. Lots of options for joint projects for the Army but from an RN perspective, a licensed build of 2-3 drone optimised Dokdo would be very welcome.

[Tempest414]

Devils in the detail but it’s difficult to see what assets RN would have regularly available to do this before the T31’s replace the RB2s.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... y-patrols/

A RN OPV is simply not suitable for the proposed deployment. Is this the reason why they are joint patrols - so that the ROK can escort the RN OPV?

At this stage, given the condition of the escort fleet, this looks like a commitment too far before the 2030’s.

The industrial element is interesting on multiple levels. Lots of options for joint projects for the Army but from an RN perspective, a licensed build of 2-3 drone optimised Dokdo would be very welcome.

Babcock is working with the ROK on its Carrier program is it not also I would of thought the ROK would been on POW for the Mojave test

Also didn't one of the RB2's already do a stint on the North Korean sanctions duty

[Poiuytrewq]

As discussed previously these conversions and drone optimised flattops will now start to widely proliferate.



The idea that RN is only going to operate MALE STOL drones from 65,000t CVF’s is ridiculous and will become ever more ridiculous going forward.

The MRSS program should be reconfigured immediately to accept the new reality.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Devils in the detail but it’s difficult to see what assets RN would have regularly available to do this before the T31’s replace the RB2s.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... y-patrols/

A RN OPV is simply not suitable for the proposed deployment. Is this the reason why they are joint patrols - so that the ROK can escort the RN OPV?

At this stage, given the condition of the escort fleet, this looks like a commitment too far before the 2030’s.

The industrial element is interesting on multiple levels. Lots of options for joint projects for the Army but from an RN perspective, a licensed build of 2-3 drone optimised Dokdo would be very welcome.

River B2 can contribute significantly. The area is where many fishery boats are steaming, and North Korean Navy seldom comes to blue water, not even brown water, but mainly littoral water.

[Poiuytrewq]

Babcock is working with the ROK on its Carrier program is it not also I would of thought the ROK would been on POW for the Mojave test

Babcock is working on CVX but a modified Dokdo looks like a better fit for RN.

If RN did decide a LHA was required the 40,000t South Korean LPX could be a useful starting point.

IMG_1386.jpeg

[donald_of_tokyo]

As discussed previously these conversions and drone optimised flattops will now start to widely proliferate.



The idea that RN is only going to operate MALE STOL drones from 65,000t CVF’s is ridiculous and will become ever more ridiculous going forward.

The MRSS program should be reconfigured immediately to accept the new reality.

For me, it is no and yes. Operating 5t class MALE drones from QECV is must. MALE is not something like poormans solution. MALE can do many things manned aircrafts cannot. We need both in the higher end maritime air asset: QECV.

On the other hand, operating MALEs of vearious size from a landing ship, a flat-top LSD shall also be pursuit. 1-2t class MALE is obvious candidate, and may be even 5t class one, depending on it operational results.

[Tempest414]

Babcock is working with the ROK on its Carrier program is it not also I would of thought the ROK would been on POW for the Mojave test

Babcock is working on CVX but a modified Dokdo looks like a better fit for RN.

If RN did decide a LHA was required the 40,000t South Korean LPX could be a useful starting point.
IMG_1386.jpeg

Sorry yes I meant in industrial terms that there are already on going programs between UK & SK and not that we should be looking to build there carrier for the UK

[SW1]

As discussed previously these conversions and drone optimised flattops will now start to widely proliferate.



The idea that RN is only going to operate MALE STOL drones from 65,000t CVF’s is ridiculous and will become ever more ridiculous going forward.

The MRSS program should be reconfigured immediately to accept the new reality.

More the idea that MALE operations in the locations we operate in don’t need to be operated from a ship so having them on the carrier is fine but it’s not a widespread requirement. Protector for example has transatlantic operating reach.

Not sure how that image of the Iranian ship changes that if it even turns out to be real.
If your looking at UAVs of ships it’s probably more into the kratos to hero style of munition bracket that would be the most interesting.


For Korean development options perhaps the helicopter or complex weapons area maybe of interest. They have couple of very capable wildcats and a big order for surion.

[Poiuytrewq]

On the other hand, operating MALEs of vearious size from a landing ship, a flat-top LSD shall also be pursuit. 1-2t class MALE is obvious candidate, and may be even 5t class one, depending on it operational results.

Traditional LPD designs now look obsolescent unless operating with a suitable flattop. Therefore why would RN limit the available options so unnecessarily by introducing a class of six identical Amphibious vessels that cannot operate MALE STOL drones.

It’s totally illogical, especially when RN is at the forefront of developing the emerging technology.

These vessels need to relevant out to the 2050’s.

Much more foresight is required.

[Tempest414]

time to move over to the current and future Amphib thread maybe chaps

[Poiuytrewq]

Further to recent OPV discussions.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ench-navy/

7 new French 2400t OPVs for €900m or £112m unit.

A stretched River to 115m LOA and around 2500t at £125m unit certainly looks plausible in comparison.

[Poiuytrewq]

Another fantastically detailed analysis.

[new guy]

Further to recent OPV discussions.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ench-navy/

7 new French 2400t OPVs for €900m or £112m unit.

A stretched River to 115m LOA and around 2500t at £125m unit certainly looks plausible in comparison.

Did a large post about it on the french thread

[R686]

Interesting.

Adding firepower to the Type 26 Frigate

https://www.navylookout.com/adding-fire ... 6-frigate/

Are we going back to the future perhaps?

Removing the gun is unlikely as in the age of the cheap swarming drone. Combined with modern advanced munitions, naval gunnery is making a comeback as a counter to uncrewed air and surface craft too small or numerous to be engaged with expensive missiles. The USS Carney recently destroyed UAVs launched by Houthi Rebels in the Red Sea using her Mk 45 gun. BAES Weapon Systems division in the US already has a contract with the RAN for the manufacture of Mk 45 guns and their Automated Handling Systems (AHS) for delivery between 2023-36.

Interesting question from that article in relation to UAV and swarm drones and the use of the 5' guns.

Could we see a return of the twin mount guns in a similar role as our WWII predecessors and perhaps more AA guns on escorts or perhaps aircraft carriers themselves?

Is 4x DS30M Mark 2 enough for the QEC or the 4x CWIS enough on T26/45 and what of the future T83?

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting question from that article in relation to UAV and swarm drones and the use of the 5' guns.

Could we see a return of the twin mount guns in a similar role as our WWII predecessors and perhaps more AA guns on escorts or perhaps aircraft carriers themselves?

Is 4x DS30M Mark 2 enough for the QEC or the 4x CWIS enough on T26/45 and what of the future T83?

Firstly what is the Mk45 now going to be used for?

If all usage is covered by other systems then the Mk45 is pointless, especially when considering the high cost.

IMO there is a strong argument for 4x 40mm on the escorts now allowing maximum VLS in the A position.

Perhaps even the Amphibious vessels now require 4x 40mm to replace DS30M and Phalanx.

A single 40mm should be the bare minimum on the OPVs.

That would allow RN to standardise around 40mm, NSM, CAMM and ASTER30. How much money would that save? The reduced logistic burden alone may justify the switch and creating and maintaining stockpiles would be hugely simplified.

It would allow both the T45 and T26 to maximise VLS cells. Perhaps another 32x Mk41 on T26 and 48x on the T45.

If the T31 removed the 57mm how many Mk41 cells could slot into the A position? If it is 32x then the amidships silo could be completely removed allowing a T26 style mission area to be created. A game changer for RN and very exportable.

If enhancing lethality is a top priority then deleting the Mk45, Mk8 and 57mm may be the best way to achieve it due to the money saved and the possibilities that arise.

[Tempest414]

Further to recent OPV discussions.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ench-navy/

7 new French 2400t OPVs for €900m or £112m unit.

A stretched River to 115m LOA and around 2500t at £125m unit certainly looks plausible in comparison.

Anyone know the length and beam of these ships and how do they really stack up against a RB2 if they were fitted with a 40mm

Big standout for the new French ship will be its 4D radar

[Tempest414]

Interesting question from that article in relation to UAV and swarm drones and the use of the 5' guns.

Could we see a return of the twin mount guns in a similar role as our WWII predecessors and perhaps more AA guns on escorts or perhaps aircraft carriers themselves?

Is 4x DS30M Mark 2 enough for the QEC or the 4x CWIS enough on T26/45 and what of the future T83?

Firstly what is the Mk45 now going to be used for?

If all usage is covered by other systems then the Mk45 is pointless, especially when considering the high cost.

IMO there is a strong argument for 4x 40mm on the escorts now allowing maximum VLS in the A position.

Perhaps even the Amphibious vessels now require 4x 40mm to replace DS30M and Phalanx.

A single 40mm should be the bare minimum on the OPVs.

That would allow RN to standardise around 40mm, NSM, CAMM and ASTER30. How much money would that save? The reduced logistic burden alone may justify the switch and creating and maintaining stockpiles would be hugely simplified.

It would allow both the T45 and T26 to maximise VLS cells. Perhaps another 32x Mk41 on T26 and 48x on the T45.

If the T31 removed the 57mm how many Mk41 cells could slot into the A position? If it is 32x then the amidships silo could be completely removed allowing a T26 style mission area to be created. A game changer for RN and very exportable.

If enhancing lethality is a top priority then deleting the Mk45, Mk8 and 57mm may be the best way to achieve it due to the money saved and the possibilities that arise.

As the 127mm now has range close to 100km's it still has a NGF role as a ship like T-26 could carry 200+ rounds this is still a good to have option as for the 40mm yes it should now replace the 30mm in service however for me the Carriers should now get 4 x 57mm . The T-31 with its 57mm and 2 40mm's is a very good gun fit for a GP frigate