Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

The material state of the escort fleet is not good. That has been the case for over 10 years now, glacial inaction has been the default position and we’ve bluffed it out with opvs.

Its as clear as day here.



Between, TAPS, Kipion, the JEF task force and HMS Kent with PWLS there are no Frigates available. Nothing.

It’s an absolute farce. How has HMG allowed it to get to this state?

Where is the urgency to realise this is unacceptable and a solution must be accelerated without delay.

By the end of the decade the active Frigate number will drop to 3. It’s totally negligent to carry on with current planning now that escort numbers are no longer at 19.

If the reality changes then plans must adapt. Unfortunately little sign of adaptation so far.

[inch]

It doesn't matter how bad it got ,the government of the day wouldn't do much as far as defence and equipment and stockpiles,even full war i have my grave doubts tbh ,at that point it would all be too late anyway,one side money men the other side obsessed with putting every single penny the country generates into NHS the balance of GDP into defence and NHS has shifted to little or nothing in defence and everything into NHS ,, which is a choice but gawd help the country if they make the wrong choice in the hr of need for this country ,that's my simplistic view anyway , neither side interested in defence or a understanding of it ,and an dubious MOD management,what could possibly go wrong

[SW1]

The material state of the escort fleet is not good. That has been the case for over 10 years now, glacial inaction has been the default position and we’ve bluffed it out with opvs.

Its as clear as day here.



Between, TAPS, Kipion, the JEF task force and HMS Kent with PWLS there are no Frigates available. Nothing.

It’s an absolute farce. How has HMG allowed it to get to this state?

Where is the urgency to realise this is unacceptable and a solution must be accelerated without delay.

By the end of the decade the active Frigate number will drop to 3. It’s totally negligent to carry on with current planning now that escort numbers are no longer at 19.

If the reality changes then plans must adapt. Unfortunately little sign of adaptation so far.

The RN since 2009 have known that type 45 needed a engine replacement, it’s known for nearly as long type 23 will not make there osd without expensive LIFEX but they prioritised spend on aircraft carriers over rectification of the issues. It was a decision they took in full knowledge of what the result was. They then failed to invest in infrastructure to allow for maintenance.

We now find from the latest NAO report that the surface ship future program is over committed by £5.9 billion and marines need another 0.7 billion to allow them to operate in a contested environment. So you pay your money you make your choices.

[Scimitar54]

Not to mention the non-deployed resources (e.g. warships) and additional supply ships needed to maintain those deployed patrol groups.

[shark bait]

How has HMG allowed it to get to this state?

We all know the answer right? Delaying investment decisions and racking up huge maintenance bills, which delays investment even further. It's how the entire country is being run!

[donald_of_tokyo]

1: RN is getting to renew their escort fleet. Soon, with new 5 T31 and 8 T26 coming, and T45 PIP ending, I understand the "manned" escort number will rise from 10 to 14, which is great. I think there is nothing needed now to do to increase escort. RN is doing it in full throttle. Buying T32 now will not make any difference simply because there is not enough crew. Even if there be more crew, we shall better "double crew" or "over crew" some escorts to keep the retention rate high by making their life easier.

On shipbuilding, MRSS is the thing to go. Maybe River B1 replacements. Maybe MHC LSV. That's it.

2: The timing RN must start thinking of "increasing the escort number" is when it became 15 years after the 1st-hulls of T31 and T26 commissions. It is, 2027+15=2042 and 2028+15 = 2043. From then on, these assets starts "aging" and intensive LIFEX work shall start. Then, RN may need some additional hulls to compensate the fall of technically (not man-power-based) available escort numbers.

T32 or T83 will be the candidate there.

[donald_of_tokyo]

For the time being, RN must put best care on keeping their man-power. There are many ships which can be manned. Bulwark and Albion? Fort Victoria? Why not double crew some of the T45s and T23s?

Also important is to add ammo. If more money can be used, overhauling HMS Westminster will be a good choice. As it will take £120M, use it for longer than planed; another 7 years, not 3 years, as currently planned. Another idea will be to buy more P-8As and/or MQ-9B SeaGuardian.

Many can be done, other than asking for more frigates which is not important now (because RN is already doing it in full speed).

[Poiuytrewq]

1: RN is getting to renew their escort fleet. Soon, with new 5 T31 and 8 T26 coming, and T45 PIP ending, I understand the "manned" escort number will rise from 10 to 14, which is great.

It is great but it won’t be quick and more T23’s will become beyond economical repair before the official OSD’s.

What is going to fill the 2028-2034 escort gap? Zero clarity. Wishful thinking won’t help.

Maximising what is in the water is essential but delaying programs to solve in-year budgetary shortfalls will stop the drumbeat again. The consequences of stopping the drumbeats are obvious.

If the funding is drying up after the T31 and FSS programs the yards will close and the Amphib fleet with begin to fall apart.

Something must be built, it’s just a question of stretching the budget as far as possible.

Closing yards and squandering the recent investment would be unconscionable.

[SW1]

1: RN is getting to renew their escort fleet. Soon, with new 5 T31 and 8 T26 coming, and T45 PIP ending, I understand the "manned" escort number will rise from 10 to 14, which is great.

It is great but it won’t be quick and more T23’s will become beyond economical repair before the official OSD’s.

What is going to fill the 2028-2034 escort gap? Zero clarity. Wishful thinking won’t help.

Maximising what is in the water is essential but delaying programs to solve in-year budgetary shortfalls will stop the drumbeat again. The consequences of stopping the drumbeats are obvious.

If the funding is drying up after the T31 and FSS programs the yards will close and the Amphib fleet with begin to fall apart.

Something must be built, it’s just a question of stretching the budget as far as possible.

Closing yards and squandering the recent investment would be unconscionable.

Nothing has to be built.

The industrial base is there to support the strategic objectives of government. When money is scarce then those strategic objectives needs to even clearer and investment then needs to be in things that give us the best chance to achieve those objectives.

The reason we keep coming back to this issue every few years is because we are not making clear eyed priority decisions and we are wasting money with sticking plaster solutions.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1: RN is getting to renew their escort fleet. Soon, with new 5 T31 and 8 T26 coming, and T45 PIP ending, I understand the "manned" escort number will rise from 10 to 14, which is great.

It is great but it won’t be quick and more T23’s will become beyond economical repair before the official OSD’s.

What is going to fill the 2028-2034 escort gap? Zero clarity. Wishful thinking won’t help.

Maximising what is in the water is essential but delaying programs to solve in-year budgetary shortfalls will stop the drumbeat again. The consequences of stopping the drumbeats are obvious.

If the funding is drying up after the T31 and FSS programs the yards will close and the Amphib fleet with begin to fall apart.

Something must be built, it’s just a question of stretching the budget as far as possible.

Closing yards and squandering the recent investment would be unconscionable.

MRSS must be built. After that, what will come? If we order T32 or alike very soon, these shipyards will ALL dry up on that moment. RN/RFA cannot build ships they cannot man.

I think it is RN’s duty to align their ship build requirement to keep the continuous order. And because of that reason, I think T32 (or alike) must not be ordered now.

How to keep the 4 yards (Barrow, Clyde, Rosyth, Belfast. actually 4, if CL is included) working? I think they shall merge or push hard to get contracts other than RN.

There is not enough resource nor man power size to go beyond current aim in RN/RFA. As such ordering many now will simply destroy the industry in near future.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Independently, reduction in ASW frigates’ number must be compensated until all T26 comes in.

My proposal is, as already said, early purchase of Merlin “replacements”. A few MQ9BASW on CVF, ASW kits for ARCIMS usvs, are the candidates.

I think ordering 3-6 more new Merlin ASW will be another option. Merlin fleet will see life extension. And, there will be airframes in bad condition. New ones will reinforce the fleet until 2036, can fill the hangars of T45 and T31. (i this case, integrating LMM Martlet to Merlin will make it perfect help to replace the Wildcats’ tasks at once.)

After 2036, they will enable early retire of bad airframes, and will be the last airframes to remain in service.

Many options are there.

[SW1]

Independently, reduction in ASW frigates’ number must be compensated until all T26 comes in.

My proposal is, as already said, early purchase of Merlin “replacements”. A few MQ9BASW on CVF, ASW kits for ARCIMS usvs, are the candidates.

I think ordering 3-6 more new Merlin ASW will be another option. Merlin fleet will see life extension. And, there will be airframes in bad condition. New ones will reinforce the fleet until 2036, can fill the hangars of T45 and T31. (i this case, integrating LMM Martlet to Merlin will make it perfect help to replace the Wildcats’ tasks at once.)

After 2036, they will enable early retire of bad airframes, and will be the last airframes to remain in service.

Many options are there.

You would be better off fitting compact flash onto wildcat. It’s the same system that is on Merlin and wildcat already has anti ship missiles integrated. The South Koreans already have it on their wildcat.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Independently, reduction in ASW frigates’ number must be compensated until all T26 comes in. ...
Many options are there.

You would be better off fitting compact flash onto wildcat. It’s the same system that is on Merlin and wildcat already has anti ship missiles integrated. The South Koreans already have it on their wildcat.

Thanks. I agree it is a candidate. But I am not so supportive of it. Adding FLASH makes Wildcat's endurance very short. To my understanding, this is the reason many of the Lynx/Wildcat-sized modern helicopters do not carry ASW dipping sonar these days.

Maybe some sonobuoy system? Like this?
Merit of these "add-on" type systems is, you will not be bothered by the "dead weight" of FLASH when doing anti-surface/patrol operations. These pods will fill the suponson to carry Stingreys, but, with new heavy drones to be introduced for Stingrey delivery will enable this?

[Tempest414]

1: RN is getting to renew their escort fleet. Soon, with new 5 T31 and 8 T26 coming, and T45 PIP ending, I understand the "manned" escort number will rise from 10 to 14, which is great.

It is great but it won’t be quick and more T23’s will become beyond economical repair before the official OSD’s.

What is going to fill the 2028-2034 escort gap? Zero clarity. Wishful thinking won’t help.

Maximising what is in the water is essential but delaying programs to solve in-year budgetary shortfalls will stop the drumbeat again. The consequences of stopping the drumbeats are obvious.

If the funding is drying up after the T31 and FSS programs the yards will close and the Amphib fleet with begin to fall apart.

Something must be built, it’s just a question of stretching the budget as far as possible.

Closing yards and squandering the recent investment would be unconscionable.

MRSS must be built. After that, what will come? If we order T32 or alike very soon, these shipyards will ALL dry up on that moment. RN/RFA cannot build ships they cannot man.

I think it is RN’s duty to align their ship build requirement to keep the continuous order. And because of that reason, I think T32 (or alike) must not be ordered now.

How to keep the 4 yards (Barrow, Clyde, Rosyth, Belfast. actually 4, if CL is included) working? I think they shall merge or push hard to get contracts other than RN.

There is not enough resource nor man power size to go beyond current aim in RN/RFA. As such ordering many now will simply destroy the industry in near future.

there is another way and that is to build 3 more Type 31 and then build 10 plus OPV's to replace all of the Rivers and the remaining MCM

So the 3 batch 2 T-31's would follow the current order to allow build flow these would be followed by 8 x OPV's we would also look for some OPV exports but if not we then look at the options

Type 26 would be speeded up and 2 to 3 OPV's of the same class would be fitted in between type 26 and Type 83

All C2 escorts and OPV's should have a max life of 20 years and all C1 escorts should be 25 years

[shark bait]

Independently, reduction in ASW frigates’ number must be compensated until all T26 comes in.

What reduction?

[donald_of_tokyo]

there is another way and that is to build 3 more Type 31 and then build 10 plus OPV's to replace all of the Rivers and the remaining MCM

So the 3 batch 2 T-31's would follow the current order to allow build flow these would be followed by 8 x OPV's we would also look for some OPV exports but if not we then look at the options

Type 26 would be speeded up and 2 to 3 OPV's of the same class would be fitted in between type 26 and Type 83

All C2 escorts and OPV's should have a max life of 20 years and all C1 escorts should be 25 years

But,
- how can RN man so many OPVs? Disbanding the two LPDs?
- how can RN disband the 5 River B2s? They are all new, and disbanding them will make HMT think that the new OPVs are not needed.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Independently, reduction in ASW frigates’ number must be compensated until all T26 comes in.

What reduction?

HMS Westminster will not be coming back, which should have been one of the active ASW frigates from late 2024 to 2028, when planned to be decommissioned.

And, further hulls may follow the same bad material condition?

[shark bait]

Is that confirmed?

If Westminster goes, the ASW skills and equipment should be transferred to one of the upgraded GP variants. Keeping 8 sub hunting frigates going should be essential, and if it means cannibalising the others then so be it! It's a sad state when 8 frigates sounds ambitious...

[Tempest414]

there is another way and that is to build 3 more Type 31 and then build 10 plus OPV's to replace all of the Rivers and the remaining MCM

So the 3 batch 2 T-31's would follow the current order to allow build flow these would be followed by 8 x OPV's we would also look for some OPV exports but if not we then look at the options

Type 26 would be speeded up and 2 to 3 OPV's of the same class would be fitted in between type 26 and Type 83

All C2 escorts and OPV's should have a max life of 20 years and all C1 escorts should be 25 years

But,
- how can RN man so many OPVs? Disbanding the two LPDs?
- how can RN disband the 5 River B2s? They are all new, and disbanding them will make HMT think that the new OPVs are not needed.

The first OPV would follow the 8th T-31 meaning it would not enter build until 2030 or 31 the first RB2 would be replaced by the forth new OPV meaning it would enter service in 2035 this would mean HMS forth would be 18 years in service close to the 20 year limit this class of ship should serve and not bad for a stop gap class given Clyde served 12 years and the RB1's are now 20 years in

[Poiuytrewq]

MRSS must be built. After that, what will come?

The starting point has to be the realisation that funding cannot be cut further and if it does the U.K. will drop below the NATO threshold.

That funding allows three yards to build simultaneously, at least in the short term, at Govan/Scotstoun, Rosyth and Belfast but is this funding level sustainable or is RN getting a higher proportion of the in-year budget to temporarily boost the UK shipbuilding sector ? IMO, allowing yards to close now that have just been given huge investment in infrastructure to improve efficiency would be unforgivable. It mustn’t happen. RN must understand that keeping three major construction yards open is beneficial to everyone including RN/RFA.

Therefore the first priority is realism within the MoD/RN as to what is achievable, affordable and realistic. Increasing mass must be prioritised but consideration must also be given to the headcount issues. Lean manned vessels may not be ideal but unfortunately it’s the only realistic option now.

The other priority is giving industry confidence in future investment. To a certain extent the MoD is doing this with the shipbuilding pipeline but then gets criticised by the NAO for uncosted aspirations. The benefits of such a policy far outweigh the negative headlines. Industry can align for future contracts and the workforce understands that to gain the contracts the yards must be productive and efficient thereby keeping industrial action to a minimum.

With T26 and T31 in build and FSS contracted the order books are in good shape but what comes after is the big question. Rosyth really deserves some certainty before the election next year as any new administration will conduct a SDSR in 2025 which will effectively stop the drumbeat at Rosyth until completion. Totally unacceptable.

The most realistic options for Rosyth are a T31 Batch2, a class of OPVs, a new design MROSS or a small class of LSVs. Anything else will take too long to crystallise and a gap will occur.

Babcock already have the T31 Batch2 design underway with the A140 MNP.

IMG_1410.jpeg

The MNP looks good but more work needs to be done on the A & B positions to install 32x Mk41 cells or as a minimum locate 32x CAMM elsewhere in the hull and add 24x Mk41 cells to either A or B.

The A140 MNP is exactly what the T31 should have been. A class of five at £400m unit would be excellent value but a total programme cost of £2.5bn would seem more realistic. But is it a priority? Can RN find the crews for 16 active escorts if 24 escorts are secured? The numbers dovetail well if RN can regularly crew 4x T45, 7x T31 and 5x T26 as 16 active escorts. This is current planning and the rationale is clear.

The big question is, can RN find £2.5bn to fund Rosyth between 2026 and 2033? That’s the question that only HMT can answer.

If the answer is no then Rosyth will have to cut production and concentrate on the other loose ends.
• 3x RB1 replacements - 80m @£80m unit.
• 3x LSV - 80m LOA @£80m unit.
• MROSS - 100m LOA @£125m unit.

It’s pretty clear that the RB1 replacement and LSV programs could be merged successfully. The replacements need to be larger but not necessarily more complex than the vessels they are replacing. A wider role of EEZ patrol, MCM and protecting critical undersea infrastructure seems sensible. With Sterling Castle and Proteus now added to the fleet work can begin to establish if a PSV/OPV hybrid is the preferred direction of travel for a merged MCM and patrol program. The case for a single class of 8 to 10 multi role vessels (based on a commercial PSV design) to ultimately replace the RB1’s, MCMV’s, Sterling Castle and Proteus is strong IMO.

That 10x vessel £1bn program would keep Rosyth going until 2030. Thereafter the T32 or T31B2 program can commence to 2037 or 2045 if the original T31 batch directly replace the RB2’s or are gradually sold off and replaced by the T31B2. Occasional exports could bulk out the order book further.

That would amount to 15x Frigates plus 10x LSV’s from £5.5bn between 2020 and 2045 which is sustainable as a baseline but pretty marginal.

[Poiuytrewq]

MRSS must be built. After that, what will come?

The starting point has to be the realisation that funding cannot be cut further and if it does the U.K. will drop below the NATO threshold.

That funding allows three yards to build simultaneously, at least in the short term, at Govan/Scotstoun, Rosyth and Belfast but is this funding level sustainable or is RN getting a higher proportion of the in-year budget to temporarily boost the UK shipbuilding sector ? IMO, allowing yards to close now that have just been given huge investment in infrastructure to improve efficiency would be unforgivable. It mustn’t happen. RN must understand that keeping three major construction yards open is beneficial to everyone including RN/RFA.

Therefore the first priority is realism within the MoD/RN as to what is achievable, affordable and realistic. Increasing mass must be prioritised but consideration must also be given to the headcount issues. Lean manned vessels may not be ideal but unfortunately it’s the only realistic option now.

The other priority is giving industry confidence in future investment. To a certain extent the MoD is doing this with the shipbuilding pipeline but then gets criticised by the NAO for uncosted aspirations. The benefits of such a policy far outweigh the negative headlines. Industry can align for future contracts and the workforce understands that to gain the contracts the yards must be productive and efficient thereby keeping industrial action to a minimum.

With T26 and T31 in build and FSS contracted the order books are in good shape but what comes after is the big question. Rosyth really deserves some certainty before the election next year as any new administration will conduct a SDSR in 2025 which will effectively stop the drumbeat at Rosyth until completion. Totally unacceptable.

The most realistic options for Rosyth are a T31 Batch2, a class of OPVs, a new design MROSS or a small class of LSVs. Anything else will take too long to crystallise and a gap will occur.

Babcock already have the T31 Batch2 design underway with the A140 MNP. IMG_1410.jpeg
The MNP looks good but more work needs to be done on the A & B positions to install 32x Mk41 cells or as a minimum locate 32x CAMM elsewhere in the hull and add 24x Mk41 cells to either A or B.

The A140 MNP is exactly what the T31 should have been. A class of five at £400m unit would be excellent value but a total programme cost of £2.5bn would seem more realistic. But is it a priority? Can RN find the crews for 16 active escorts if 24 escorts are secured? The numbers dovetail well if RN can regularly crew 4x T45, 7x T31 and 5x T26 as 16 active escorts. This is current planning and the rationale is clear.

The big question is, can RN find £2.5bn to fund Rosyth between 2026 and 2033? That’s the question that only HMT can answer.

If the answer is no then Rosyth will have to cut production and concentrate on the other loose ends.
• 3x RB1 replacements - 80m @£80m unit.
• 3x LSV - 80m LOA @£80m unit.
• MROSS - 100m LOA @£125m unit.

It’s pretty clear that the RB1 replacement and LSV programs could be merged successfully. The replacements need to be larger but not necessarily more complex than the vessels they are replacing. A wider role of EEZ patrol, MCM and protecting critical undersea infrastructure seems sensible. With Sterling Castle and Proteus now added to the fleet work can begin to establish if a PSV/OPV hybrid is the preferred direction of travel for a merged MCM and patrol program. The case for a single class of 8 to 10 multi role vessels (based on a commercial PSV design) to ultimately replace the RB1’s, MCMV’s, Sterling Castle and Proteus is strong IMO.

That 10x vessel £1bn program would keep Rosyth going until 2030. Thereafter the T32 or T31B2 program can commence to 2037 or 2045 if the original T31 batch directly replace the RB2’s or are gradually sold off and replaced by the T31B2. Occasional exports could bulk out the order book further.

That would amount to 15x Frigates plus 10x LSV’s from £5.5bn between 2020 and 2045 which is sustainable as a baseline but pretty marginal.

As ever mate, you make a lot of sense and SDSR 2025 will be the decider....

I think the RN are now fixed on supporting and growing CVS and SSN's, with at least 'a wish list' to grow the escort fleet back to the mid 20's.

Carrier Strike will be the subject of serious investment, with Carrier refits permitting large drone launch and recovery, opening the door to Loyal wingman/ASW/ AEW/AAR drones.

I hope Type 83 is based on the T26 hull platform with the mission module replaced with missile module.

It's a compromise sure, but it's an incremental development of the T26 platform, using as much as possible of the T26 and most importantly, an affordable route to the T83, without letting the budget spiral out of control.

We all know the Admiralty will push for a 10,000 ton Cruiser sized bespoke platform otherwise, that will rapidly become unaffordable.

In order to meet NATO requirements, alongside our out of area and standing Carrier Task group escort force, I would like to see SDSR 2025 decide on a future fleet of 31.

12 X T26
9 X T83
10 X T31 batch 1 & 2
SSN X 12

I do feel Amphibious shipping and the RM Corps will be allowed to shrink as a lower priority.

The reality is Albion and Bulwarks replacements should be being discussed right now, they aren't. It seems to me these man power intensive units will likely be phased out in the early 2030's without replacement.

We will be lucky if we get replacements for the Bay Class I think.

[wargame_insomniac]

Is that confirmed?

If Westminster goes, the ASW skills and equipment should be transferred to one of the upgraded GP variants. Keeping 8 sub hunting frigates going should be essential, and if it means cannibalising the others then so be it! It's a sad state when 8 frigates sounds ambitious...

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-unc ... stminster/

If Westminster goes that will reduce the RN to just 16 escorts (6*T45 destroyer, of which only two have completed PIP, and 1 still undergoing PIP) and 10*T23 frigates (7*ASW & 3*GP), with St Albans and Sutherland still undergoing LIFEX).

[Jake1992]

MRSS must be built. After that, what will come?

The starting point has to be the realisation that funding cannot be cut further and if it does the U.K. will drop below the NATO threshold.

That funding allows three yards to build simultaneously, at least in the short term, at Govan/Scotstoun, Rosyth and Belfast but is this funding level sustainable or is RN getting a higher proportion of the in-year budget to temporarily boost the UK shipbuilding sector ? IMO, allowing yards to close now that have just been given huge investment in infrastructure to improve efficiency would be unforgivable. It mustn’t happen. RN must understand that keeping three major construction yards open is beneficial to everyone including RN/RFA.

Therefore the first priority is realism within the MoD/RN as to what is achievable, affordable and realistic. Increasing mass must be prioritised but consideration must also be given to the headcount issues. Lean manned vessels may not be ideal but unfortunately it’s the only realistic option now.

The other priority is giving industry confidence in future investment. To a certain extent the MoD is doing this with the shipbuilding pipeline but then gets criticised by the NAO for uncosted aspirations. The benefits of such a policy far outweigh the negative headlines. Industry can align for future contracts and the workforce understands that to gain the contracts the yards must be productive and efficient thereby keeping industrial action to a minimum.

With T26 and T31 in build and FSS contracted the order books are in good shape but what comes after is the big question. Rosyth really deserves some certainty before the election next year as any new administration will conduct a SDSR in 2025 which will effectively stop the drumbeat at Rosyth until completion. Totally unacceptable.

The most realistic options for Rosyth are a T31 Batch2, a class of OPVs, a new design MROSS or a small class of LSVs. Anything else will take too long to crystallise and a gap will occur.

Babcock already have the T31 Batch2 design underway with the A140 MNP. IMG_1410.jpeg
The MNP looks good but more work needs to be done on the A & B positions to install 32x Mk41 cells or as a minimum locate 32x CAMM elsewhere in the hull and add 24x Mk41 cells to either A or B.

The A140 MNP is exactly what the T31 should have been. A class of five at £400m unit would be excellent value but a total programme cost of £2.5bn would seem more realistic. But is it a priority? Can RN find the crews for 16 active escorts if 24 escorts are secured? The numbers dovetail well if RN can regularly crew 4x T45, 7x T31 and 5x T26 as 16 active escorts. This is current planning and the rationale is clear.

The big question is, can RN find £2.5bn to fund Rosyth between 2026 and 2033? That’s the question that only HMT can answer.

If the answer is no then Rosyth will have to cut production and concentrate on the other loose ends.
• 3x RB1 replacements - 80m @£80m unit.
• 3x LSV - 80m LOA @£80m unit.
• MROSS - 100m LOA @£125m unit.

It’s pretty clear that the RB1 replacement and LSV programs could be merged successfully. The replacements need to be larger but not necessarily more complex than the vessels they are replacing. A wider role of EEZ patrol, MCM and protecting critical undersea infrastructure seems sensible. With Sterling Castle and Proteus now added to the fleet work can begin to establish if a PSV/OPV hybrid is the preferred direction of travel for a merged MCM and patrol program. The case for a single class of 8 to 10 multi role vessels (based on a commercial PSV design) to ultimately replace the RB1’s, MCMV’s, Sterling Castle and Proteus is strong IMO.

That 10x vessel £1bn program would keep Rosyth going until 2030. Thereafter the T32 or T31B2 program can commence to 2037 or 2045 if the original T31 batch directly replace the RB2’s or are gradually sold off and replaced by the T31B2. Occasional exports could bulk out the order book further.

That would amount to 15x Frigates plus 10x LSV’s from £5.5bn between 2020 and 2045 which is sustainable as a baseline but pretty marginal.

I hope Type 83 is based on the T26 hull platform with the mission module replaced with missile module.

It's a compromise sure, but it's an incremental development of the T26 platform, using as much as possible of the T26 and most importantly, an affordable route to the T83, without letting the budget spiral out of control.

The issue with going this way for the T83 is you run the real risk of killing off your escort design capability and we can see this in the USN, they stuck with the AB design and when time came to replace they ended up with the like if the LCS and Zumwalt neither much good and in the end had to buy a foreign design.

[SW1]

Is that confirmed?

If Westminster goes, the ASW skills and equipment should be transferred to one of the upgraded GP variants. Keeping 8 sub hunting frigates going should be essential, and if it means cannibalising the others then so be it! It's a sad state when 8 frigates sounds ambitious...

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-unc ... stminster/

If Westminster goes that will reduce the RN to just 16 escorts (6*T45 destroyer, of which only two have completed PIP, and 1 still undergoing PIP) and 10*T23 frigates (7*ASW & 3*GP), with St Albans and Sutherland still undergoing LIFEX).

The 3 General purpose frigates are to decommission over the next 4 years too I think.

[mrclark303]

MRSS must be built. After that, what will come?

The starting point has to be the realisation that funding cannot be cut further and if it does the U.K. will drop below the NATO threshold.

That funding allows three yards to build simultaneously, at least in the short term, at Govan/Scotstoun, Rosyth and Belfast but is this funding level sustainable or is RN getting a higher proportion of the in-year budget to temporarily boost the UK shipbuilding sector ? IMO, allowing yards to close now that have just been given huge investment in infrastructure to improve efficiency would be unforgivable. It mustn’t happen. RN must understand that keeping three major construction yards open is beneficial to everyone including RN/RFA.

Therefore the first priority is realism within the MoD/RN as to what is achievable, affordable and realistic. Increasing mass must be prioritised but consideration must also be given to the headcount issues. Lean manned vessels may not be ideal but unfortunately it’s the only realistic option now.

The other priority is giving industry confidence in future investment. To a certain extent the MoD is doing this with the shipbuilding pipeline but then gets criticised by the NAO for uncosted aspirations. The benefits of such a policy far outweigh the negative headlines. Industry can align for future contracts and the workforce understands that to gain the contracts the yards must be productive and efficient thereby keeping industrial action to a minimum.

With T26 and T31 in build and FSS contracted the order books are in good shape but what comes after is the big question. Rosyth really deserves some certainty before the election next year as any new administration will conduct a SDSR in 2025 which will effectively stop the drumbeat at Rosyth until completion. Totally unacceptable.

The most realistic options for Rosyth are a T31 Batch2, a class of OPVs, a new design MROSS or a small class of LSVs. Anything else will take too long to crystallise and a gap will occur.

Babcock already have the T31 Batch2 design underway with the A140 MNP. IMG_1410.jpeg
The MNP looks good but more work needs to be done on the A & B positions to install 32x Mk41 cells or as a minimum locate 32x CAMM elsewhere in the hull and add 24x Mk41 cells to either A or B.

The A140 MNP is exactly what the T31 should have been. A class of five at £400m unit would be excellent value but a total programme cost of £2.5bn would seem more realistic. But is it a priority? Can RN find the crews for 16 active escorts if 24 escorts are secured? The numbers dovetail well if RN can regularly crew 4x T45, 7x T31 and 5x T26 as 16 active escorts. This is current planning and the rationale is clear.

The big question is, can RN find £2.5bn to fund Rosyth between 2026 and 2033? That’s the question that only HMT can answer.

If the answer is no then Rosyth will have to cut production and concentrate on the other loose ends.
• 3x RB1 replacements - 80m @£80m unit.
• 3x LSV - 80m LOA @£80m unit.
• MROSS - 100m LOA @£125m unit.

It’s pretty clear that the RB1 replacement and LSV programs could be merged successfully. The replacements need to be larger but not necessarily more complex than the vessels they are replacing. A wider role of EEZ patrol, MCM and protecting critical undersea infrastructure seems sensible. With Sterling Castle and Proteus now added to the fleet work can begin to establish if a PSV/OPV hybrid is the preferred direction of travel for a merged MCM and patrol program. The case for a single class of 8 to 10 multi role vessels (based on a commercial PSV design) to ultimately replace the RB1’s, MCMV’s, Sterling Castle and Proteus is strong IMO.

That 10x vessel £1bn program would keep Rosyth going until 2030. Thereafter the T32 or T31B2 program can commence to 2037 or 2045 if the original T31 batch directly replace the RB2’s or are gradually sold off and replaced by the T31B2. Occasional exports could bulk out the order book further.

That would amount to 15x Frigates plus 10x LSV’s from £5.5bn between 2020 and 2045 which is sustainable as a baseline but pretty marginal.

I hope Type 83 is based on the T26 hull platform with the mission module replaced with missile module.

It's a compromise sure, but it's an incremental development of the T26 platform, using as much as possible of the T26 and most importantly, an affordable route to the T83, without letting the budget spiral out of control.

The issue with going this way for the T83 is you run the real risk of killing off your escort design capability and we can see this in the USN, they stuck with the AB design and when time came to replace they ended up with the like if the LCS and Zumwalt neither much good and in the end had to buy a foreign design.

It's a totally valid point, but we run the risk of making a clean sheet design unaffordable.

It would certainly be the preferred route in an ideal world, but these days I would settle for something that's 90% and good enough, delivered on time, on budget and in the quantity needed, i.e, we need 8, preferably 9.

Rather than 100%, all new large from the keel up design, with runaway costs and the inevitable delays, ending with a reduced order.

The RN of the 2030's and 40's will likely be sailing in very dangerous seas, if the direction of today's international events is anything to guage.

They will probably need 5 operational, so that mean ordering 9.