Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[tomuk]

Do we know how many missiles the type 31 will carry when completed?

This will depend on weather T-31 gets 8 - 16 -24 or 32 Mk-41 as it could then carry 32 - 64 -96 or 128 CAMM

Go to the type 31 thread and you will see how many Mk-41 launchers HMS Venturer will have at launch (spoiler none)

How many did HMS Glasgow have at launch?

[Tempest414]

The point being that dependant on what is fitted to type 31 and when they could end up with any number of missiles but what we should be looking for from type 31 is 60% of the capability of T-26 for half the price so something like

Doesn't work that way for warships. For them, you get 30% of the capability for half the price,

Well in that case the RN really has played a blinder on Type 31 because they are already at 40% for a 3rd of the price

[Ron5]

The point being that dependant on what is fitted to type 31 and when they could end up with any number of missiles but what we should be looking for from type 31 is 60% of the capability of T-26 for half the price so something like

Doesn't work that way for warships. For them, you get 30% of the capability for half the price,

Well in that case the RN really has played a blinder on Type 31 because they are already at 40% for a 3rd of the price

40%? sure.

[donald_of_tokyo]

When will be the T26s and T31s will see IOC?

Tricky is the T31's "hand over to RN", which is known to immediately follow the capability improvement period to add CAMM and some sensors/com-suits.

1: It is announced that T26-hull1 will meet IOC on Oct 2028. I understand T26 hull2 will be on late 2029 or 2030. T26 hull3 will be on 2031. T26 hull 8 is said to be "in service" within 2035 (a bit tight schedule?). Note, all this is "IOC", so the hulls will be handed over to RN, 2 years (hull1) or 1-1.5 years (hull2 onward) before the IOC.

2: What is not clear is the T31. It was initially said to "hit the water in 2023" (last year), and "handed over to RN on 2025". We know schedule is slipping, so she will "hit the water on late 2024". Normally thinking, this will mean "hand over to RN on 2026" (after builder's trial), and then start CIP. She will be back in RN on 2027 if the CIP is "modest", but from here she needs the "first of class ship trials". By copying as much as possible from Iver Huitfeldt class, this can be maybe shortened, but will need at least 1.5 years (there are still many "new" stuffs in T31). Here we see that the T31 hull1 IOC will be on 2028 at the earliest. T31 Hull 2 will follow almost immediately, thanks to hull1's "opening the way", and T31hull 3 within a half a year. T31 hull 1, 2 and 3 can meet IOC on 2030, hopefully.

But, can the 3 T23GPs survive until 2030? Not all will. There is a clear and big risk of "gapping" here. I think we need more info around this IOC dates for the T26 and T31 frigates.

[new guy]

When will be the T26s and T31s will see IOC?

Tricky is the T31's "hand over to RN", which is known to immediately follow the capability improvement period to add CAMM and some sensors/com-suits.

1: It is announced that T26-hull1 will meet IOC on Oct 2028. I understand T26 hull2 will be on late 2029 or 2030. T26 hull3 will be on 2031. T26 hull 5 is said to be "in service" within 2035 (a bit tight schedule?). Note, all this is "IOC", so the hulls will be handed over to RN, 2 years (hull1) or 1-1.5 years (hull2 onward) before the IOC.

2: What is not clear is the T31. It was initially said to "hit the water in 2023" (last year), and "handed over to RN on 2025". We know schedule is slipping, so she will "hit the water on late 2024". Normally thinking, this will mean "hand over to RN on 2026" (after builder's trial), and then start CIP. She will be back in RN on 2027 if the CIP is "modest", but from here she needs the "first of class ship trials". By copying as much as possible from Iver Huitfeldt class, this can be maybe shortened, but will need at least 1.5 years (there are still many "new" stuffs in T31). Here we see that the T31 hull1 IOC will be on 2028 at the earliest. T31 Hull2 will follow almost immediately, thanks to hull1's "opening the way", and T31hull2 within a half a year. T31 hull 1, 2 and 3 can meet IOC on 2030, hopefully.

But, can the 3 T23GPs survive until 2030? Not all will. There is a clear and big risk of "gapping" here. I think we need more info around this IOC dates for the T26 and T31 frigates.

The RN needs Babcock's to keep the schedule they committed to. So far they've done a poor job on that.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The RN needs Babcock's to keep the schedule they committed to. So far they've done a poor job on that.

Poor, but the best we can expect in a company which had never built any frigate in its history. They are doing their best, I think better than I expected. But still it will never meet the schedule they stated.

[Ron5]

The RN needs Babcock's to keep the schedule they committed to. So far they've done a poor job on that.

Poor, but the best we can expect in a company which had never built any frigate in its history. They are doing their best, I think better than I expected. But still it will never meet the schedule they stated.

Let's hope for contract penalties.

[new guy]

The RN needs Babcock's to keep the schedule they committed to. So far they've done a poor job on that.

Poor, but the best we can expect in a company which had never built any frigate in its history. They are doing their best, I think better than I expected. But still it will never meet the schedule they stated.

Let's hope for contract penalties.

It wouldn't really help anyone. RN wouldn't get them any quicker, No option to use the money rewarded, wouldn't help the RN make sure babcock still exists.

[Ron5]

The RN needs Babcock's to keep the schedule they committed to. So far they've done a poor job on that.

Poor, but the best we can expect in a company which had never built any frigate in its history. They are doing their best, I think better than I expected. But still it will never meet the schedule they stated.

Let's hope for contract penalties.

It wouldn't really help anyone. RN wouldn't get them any quicker, No option to use the money rewarded, wouldn't help the RN make sure babcock still exists.

Pour encourager les autres

[new guy]

The RN needs Babcock's to keep the schedule they committed to. So far they've done a poor job on that.

Poor, but the best we can expect in a company which had never built any frigate in its history. They are doing their best, I think better than I expected. But still it will never meet the schedule they stated.

Let's hope for contract penalties.

It wouldn't really help anyone. RN wouldn't get them any quicker, No option to use the money rewarded, wouldn't help the RN make sure babcock still exists.

Pour encourager les autres

To what?

[Tempest414]

The RN needs Babcock's to keep the schedule they committed to. So far they've done a poor job on that.

Poor, but the best we can expect in a company which had never built any frigate in its history. They are doing their best, I think better than I expected. But still it will never meet the schedule they stated.

When we add in that Babcocks had to repair POW outside its dry dock period I think they are doing Ok given the all singing and wonderful BAE have slipped a whole year on the first Type 26 in the same time frame

[tomuk]

The RN needs Babcock's to keep the schedule they committed to. So far they've done a poor job on that.

Poor, but the best we can expect in a company which had never built any frigate in its history. They are doing their best, I think better than I expected. But still it will never meet the schedule they stated.

Let's hope for contract penalties.

Babcock are getting more money not penalties.

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved across.

Also as for role that is clear it is global patrol and keeping SLC open the same role the Type 26 GP's were to carry out and the same job the T-23-GP's were doing until they become worn out and were gapped by the RB2's

This reasoning only works up to a point.

• Forth replaced Clyde so no Frigate involved.

• Kipion will require a T31 to replace the T23GP

• The two RB2s in the Indo Pacific are planned to be replaced with two T31s

• A T31 may also be required in the Red Sea.


If that happens RNs 4 active T31s will be committed with the 5th in maintenance and no additional hulls to relieve them or support them if required. The T45s and T26/T23ASW will be required for the CSG and TAPS. What about the U.K.s NATO commitments? It is not a credible strategy.

To fix this within a decade RN has three options.

1. Speed up the build rate at Govan to add another 2 or 3 T26. Cost: around £3bn

2. Build another five T31/T32 at Rosyth. Cost: £2+bn

3. Build five OPV+ at Cammell Laird or Appledore. Cost £750m

Which is most likely?

If funding and manpower doesn’t increase then a combination of 2 and 3 is the best option IMO.

If T31 hulls 1 and 2 are quickly built to the original spec then RN can add hulls 6 and 7 to the end of the production run to meet the new 5x GP Frigate requirement with Mk41. The T32 can then follow on throughout the 2030s when hulls 1 and 2 can be upgraded or sold.

Concurrently RN could build the 5x OPV+ at Cammell Laird if an improved River design is chosen or perhaps at Appledore if a Vard design is preferred.

Total cost of £1.5bn over 10 years averaging around £150m per annum for 2x T31GP and 5x OPV+. An absolute bargain to transform RNs escort availability.

The difference would be transformative within 5-6 years.

• The 3x RB1s could decommission as planned starting around 2028 and are replaced by 3x RB2s to patrol the UK EEZ.

• The 2x RB2s could be replaced in the Indo Pacific by 2x OPV+ by the end of the decade.

• Forth stays in the Falklands

• The 3rd OPV+ could be forward based in the Caribbean augmented seasonally by a Bay or MRSS.

• The 4th OPV+ could concentrate on the West African coast and support the RB2 in the South Atlantic operating from Gibraltar.

• The 5th RB2 and 5th OPV+ would be in maintenance/reserve in Gibraltar.

• T31 hulls 1 & 2 could be forward based at Duqm to operate in the Gulf and Red Sea. A 3rd T31 with the Mk41 cells fitted could also be forward based at Duqm to add mass EoS, patrol the West African coast and Indian Ocean whilst also providing support to LRG(S).

• 4x T31, all with Mk41 cells fitted would remain in the U.K. to provide FRE, support to LRG(N) and maintain the U.K.s NATO commitments.

• By 2033 RN would have:

- 6x T45
- 8x T23ASW/T26
- 2x T31 Patrol
- 5x T31 GP with Mk41
- 5x RB2
- 5x OPV+

Not perfect but achievable and a very affordable option massively increasing the likelihood that HMT will agree to fund it. It would also give the politicians plenty of soundbites about “growing the Royal Navy” which could be particularly attractive in an election year.

Of course if the funding and headcount genuinely increases in real terms then other more meaningful options could be considered but until then, IMO this is the best way to proceed.

[SW1]

Moved

To fix this within a decade RN has three options.

1. Speed up the build rate at Govan to add another 2 or 3 T26. Cost: around £3bn

2. Build another five T31/T32 at Rosyth. Cost: £2+bn

3. Build five OPV+ at Cammell Laird or Appledore. Cost £750m

Which is most likely?
.

Or the kipion and recent operation in the red are merged and our contribution to the region is a single vessel committed to a multinational task groups.

The pointless Pacific commitment is deleted. Our commitment to that region is from 2027 the deployment of an ssn to Australia to enable there nuclear submarine build up plan.

The remaining 4 vessels of the type 31 are committed to the 2 standing nato group and the two Atlantic patrol tasks.

If additional tasks are required to be meet then either an additional order for type 31 is placed or type 45 and type 26 are freed up for them by reducing to a single task group requirement.

Or you can live of hope of lots more cash…. Stop laughing at the back..

[donald_of_tokyo]

Moved across.

Also as for role that is clear it is global patrol and keeping SLC open the same role the Type 26 GP's were to carry out and the same job the T-23-GP's were doing until they become worn out and were gapped by the RB2's

This reasoning only works up to a point.

• Forth replaced Clyde so no Frigate involved.

• Kipion will require a T31 to replace the T23GP

• The two RB2s in the Indo Pacific are planned to be replaced with two T31s

• A T31 may also be required in the Red Sea.

A bit of comment.

In RN official document, there were
- "T31 and River B2" on the Indo-Pacific. So, 1 T31 and 1 RB2 forward deployed.
- "T31 or River B2" on the Gib. and "T31 for NATO fleet and/or FRE". So, 1 T31 around Gib or Britain, I guess.
- and we know it will be one for KIPION. So, 1 T31 forward deployed.

This means, two T31 forward deployed and another on Gib and/or FRE and/or NATO. This task lists will require 4 T31 active and 1 on maintenance = 5 T31 has their job.

[donald_of_tokyo]

• By 2033 RN would have:

- 6x T45
- 8x T23ASW/T26
- 2x T31 Patrol
- 5x T31 GP with Mk41
- 5x RB2
- 5x OPV+

Not perfect but achievable and a very affordable option massively increasing the likelihood that HMT will agree to fund it. It would also give the politicians plenty of soundbites about “growing the Royal Navy” which could be particularly attractive in an election year.

Comment-2. I cannot see the man-power is there.

(I guess you are assuming losing LPDs and not replacing them with any large LHD/LPD? One option).

By the way, in the current plan, RN will have

- 6x T45
- 8x T23ASW/T26
- 5x T31 GP
- 5x RB2

With 3x T45, 6x T26, 5x T31 (1 in maintenance, 1 double-crewed) active, the current 2200-strong escort crew is gone (200*3 + 160*6 + 120*5, all including flight). And 4 RB2 will be active, all with x1.5 manning scheme.

If there be money for 2 more "T31 GP with Mk41" and 5 more "OPV+", I think 1 more "T26" and 2 more "OPV+" could be brought into service. If RN can find "160 + 90x2 = 340" more active crew = about 800 to 1000 more head-count, this will be doable. (here I guess OPV+ will have a crew of 60, with x1.5 manning). If not, RN cannot man them.

[new guy]

CSG- 6 ~T26 and 6~T45
Kipon- 1 T31.
LRG(S) & LRG (N) - 1 T31
APT(N)- HMS Medway
APT(S)- HMS Forth
Falklands guard-ship / North-west Africa- HMS Trent
TAPS- ~2+ T26.
NATOSMG1&2- 1 T31.

[Tempest414]

Moved across.

Also as for role that is clear it is global patrol and keeping SLC open the same role the Type 26 GP's were to carry out and the same job the T-23-GP's were doing until they become worn out and were gapped by the RB2's

This reasoning only works up to a point.

• Forth replaced Clyde so no Frigate involved.

• Kipion will require a T31 to replace the T23GP

• The two RB2s in the Indo Pacific are planned to be replaced with two T31s

• A T31 may also be required in the Red Sea.


If that happens RNs 4 active T31s will be committed with the 5th in maintenance and no additional hulls to relieve them or support them if required. The T45s and T26/T23ASW will be required for the CSG and TAPS. What about the U.K.s NATO commitments? It is not a credible strategy.

To fix this within a decade RN has three options.

1. Speed up the build rate at Govan to add another 2 or 3 T26. Cost: around £3bn

2. Build another five T31/T32 at Rosyth. Cost: £2+bn

3. Build five OPV+ at Cammell Laird or Appledore. Cost £750m

Which is most likely?

If funding and manpower doesn’t increase then a combination of 2 and 3 is the best option IMO.

If T31 hulls 1 and 2 are quickly built to the original spec then RN can add hulls 6 and 7 to the end of the production run to meet the new 5x GP Frigate requirement with Mk41. The T32 can then follow on throughout the 2030s when hulls 1 and 2 can be upgraded or sold.

Concurrently RN could build the 5x OPV+ at Cammell Laird if an improved River design is chosen or perhaps at Appledore if a Vard design is preferred.

Total cost of £1.5bn over 10 years averaging around £150m per annum for 2x T31GP and 5x OPV+. An absolute bargain to transform RNs escort availability.

The difference would be transformative within 5-6 years.

• The 3x RB1s could decommission as planned starting around 2028 and are replaced by 3x RB2s to patrol the UK EEZ.

• The 2x RB2s could be replaced in the Indo Pacific by 2x OPV+ by the end of the decade.

• Forth stays in the Falklands

• The 3rd OPV+ could be forward based in the Caribbean augmented seasonally by a Bay or MRSS.

• The 4th OPV+ could concentrate on the West African coast and support the RB2 in the South Atlantic operating from Gibraltar.

• The 5th RB2 and 5th OPV+ would be in maintenance/reserve in Gibraltar.

• T31 hulls 1 & 2 could be forward based at Duqm to operate in the Gulf and Red Sea. A 3rd T31 with the Mk41 cells fitted could also be forward based at Duqm to add mass EoS, patrol the West African coast and Indian Ocean whilst also providing support to LRG(S).

• 4x T31, all with Mk41 cells fitted would remain in the U.K. to provide FRE, support to LRG(N) and maintain the U.K.s NATO commitments.

• By 2033 RN would have:

- 6x T45
- 8x T23ASW/T26
- 2x T31 Patrol
- 5x T31 GP with Mk41
- 5x RB2
- 5x OPV+

Not perfect but achievable and a very affordable option massively increasing the likelihood that HMT will agree to fund it. It would also give the politicians plenty of soundbites about “growing the Royal Navy” which could be particularly attractive in an election year.

Of course if the funding and headcount genuinely increases in real terms then other more meaningful options could be considered but until then, IMO this is the best way to proceed.

If an only if there was 2.5 billion and the crew count goes up then we could go with 1 extra T-26 , 2 x extra T-31's and 3 cheap 80 metre OPV's to replace the RB1's

[Repulse]

In terms of escorts the following is a realistic set of standing tasks based on priorities.

- 2 FREs. Ready to surge globally either as singleton or as part of CSG deployments.
- TAPS
- High North Atlantic Patrol Ship
- Indian Ocean Patrol Ship (based in Oman)
- 2 CSG assigned escorts

Means 7 deployed/high readiness escorts - which based on a lean 3 deployed to 7 ships, requires 16 tier one warships. All ships can be crewed using current manning levels.

It would require all 5 B2 Rivers remaining in their current roles, plus 3 new UK EEZ patrol craft capable of acting as escorts for Russian ships (or other potential foes), reducing the demand on the FRE, ideally with a degree of Littoral ASW capabilities. Again no significant increase in crewing requirements.

Lean yes, relevant absolutely.

[tomuk]

In terms of escorts the following is a realistic set of standing tasks based on priorities.

- 2 FREs. Ready to surge globally either as singleton or as part of CSG deployments.
- TAPS
- High North Atlantic Patrol Ship
- Indian Ocean Patrol Ship (based in Oman)
- 2 CSG assigned escorts

Means 7 deployed/high readiness escorts - which based on a lean 3 deployed to 7 ships, requires 16 tier one warships. All ships can be crewed using current manning levels.

It would require all 5 B2 Rivers remaining in their current roles, plus 3 new UK EEZ patrol craft capable of acting as escorts for Russian ships (or other potential foes), reducing the demand on the FRE, ideally with a degree of Littoral ASW capabilities. Again no significant increase in crewing requirements.

Lean yes, relevant absolutely.

Can you explain how you're going to crew UKEEZ OPV with ASW capability.

[Repulse]

In terms of escorts the following is a realistic set of standing tasks based on priorities.

- 2 FREs. Ready to surge globally either as singleton or as part of CSG deployments.
- TAPS
- High North Atlantic Patrol Ship
- Indian Ocean Patrol Ship (based in Oman)
- 2 CSG assigned escorts

Means 7 deployed/high readiness escorts - which based on a lean 3 deployed to 7 ships, requires 16 tier one warships. All ships can be crewed using current manning levels.

It would require all 5 B2 Rivers remaining in their current roles, plus 3 new UK EEZ patrol craft capable of acting as escorts for Russian ships (or other potential foes), reducing the demand on the FRE, ideally with a degree of Littoral ASW capabilities. Again no significant increase in crewing requirements.

Lean yes, relevant absolutely.

Can you explain how you're going to crew UKEEZ OPV with ASW capability.

Sure, it would be a CAPTAS-1 modular TAS requiring an increase in crew of @10, plus a Merlin capable helipad to support land based assets. More than possible.

Can you answer my question now on how you are planning to crew the T31s and whether they are forward based?

[tomuk]

In terms of escorts the following is a realistic set of standing tasks based on priorities.

- 2 FREs. Ready to surge globally either as singleton or as part of CSG deployments.
- TAPS
- High North Atlantic Patrol Ship
- Indian Ocean Patrol Ship (based in Oman)
- 2 CSG assigned escorts

Means 7 deployed/high readiness escorts - which based on a lean 3 deployed to 7 ships, requires 16 tier one warships. All ships can be crewed using current manning levels.

It would require all 5 B2 Rivers remaining in their current roles, plus 3 new UK EEZ patrol craft capable of acting as escorts for Russian ships (or other potential foes), reducing the demand on the FRE, ideally with a degree of Littoral ASW capabilities. Again no significant increase in crewing requirements.

Lean yes, relevant absolutely.

Can you explain how you're going to crew UKEEZ OPV with ASW capability.

Sure, it would be a CAPTAS-1 modular TAS requiring an increase in crew of @10, plus a Merlin capable helipad to support land based assets. More than possible.

Can you answer my question now on how you are planning to crew the T31s and whether they are forward based?

Why do you think forward basing is a negative?

[Repulse]

In terms of escorts the following is a realistic set of standing tasks based on priorities.

- 2 FREs. Ready to surge globally either as singleton or as part of CSG deployments.
- TAPS
- High North Atlantic Patrol Ship
- Indian Ocean Patrol Ship (based in Oman)
- 2 CSG assigned escorts

Means 7 deployed/high readiness escorts - which based on a lean 3 deployed to 7 ships, requires 16 tier one warships. All ships can be crewed using current manning levels.

It would require all 5 B2 Rivers remaining in their current roles, plus 3 new UK EEZ patrol craft capable of acting as escorts for Russian ships (or other potential foes), reducing the demand on the FRE, ideally with a degree of Littoral ASW capabilities. Again no significant increase in crewing requirements.

Lean yes, relevant absolutely.

Can you explain how you're going to crew UKEEZ OPV with ASW capability.

Sure, it would be a CAPTAS-1 modular TAS requiring an increase in crew of @10, plus a Merlin capable helipad to support land based assets. More than possible.

Can you answer my question now on how you are planning to crew the T31s and whether they are forward based?

Why do you think forward basing is a negative?

Answer the question, I’ve asked it many times now.

[Tempest414]

In terms of escorts the following is a realistic set of standing tasks based on priorities.

- 2 FREs. Ready to surge globally either as singleton or as part of CSG deployments.
- TAPS
- High North Atlantic Patrol Ship
- Indian Ocean Patrol Ship (based in Oman)
- 2 CSG assigned escorts

Means 7 deployed/high readiness escorts - which based on a lean 3 deployed to 7 ships, requires 16 tier one warships. All ships can be crewed using current manning levels.

It would require all 5 B2 Rivers remaining in their current roles, plus 3 new UK EEZ patrol craft capable of acting as escorts for Russian ships (or other potential foes), reducing the demand on the FRE, ideally with a degree of Littoral ASW capabilities. Again no significant increase in crewing requirements.

Lean yes, relevant absolutely.

Can you explain how you're going to crew UKEEZ OPV with ASW capability.

Sure, it would be a CAPTAS-1 modular TAS requiring an increase in crew of @10, plus a Merlin capable helipad to support land based assets. More than possible.

Can you answer my question now on how you are planning to crew the T31s and whether they are forward based?

Why do you think forward basing is a negative?

Answer the question, I’ve asked it many times now.

As I have said many times now I would have 8 x T-31s all single crewed 4 in the Indo- Pacific and 4 in the Atlantic each ship would conduct 3 months on and 3 off allowing for 4 duty escorts with 4 going though step maintenance in there down time. Also as said I would keep the 8 OPV's and Ice patrol ship with 2 in the Indo-Pac and 6+IPS in the Atlantic

The 4 main areas will be the Gulf , Indian Ocean , North Atlantic & South Atlantic these areas are starting to be contested more and more by China , Russia & Iran using the 8 x GP frigates , 8 x OPV's & 1 IPS to Patrol and counter this we can surge our tire 1 fleet were and when we need to.

With 14 Tire 1 escorts we should be able to cover 1 x duty CSG , TAPS & SNMG1 or 2 no need for a FRE as we would have 4 duty escorts

[Poiuytrewq]

Or the kipion and recent operation in the red are merged and our contribution to the region is a single vessel committed to a multinational task groups.

The pointless Pacific commitment is deleted. Our commitment to that region is from 2027 the deployment of an ssn to Australia to enable there nuclear submarine build up plan.

The remaining 4 vessels of the type 31 are committed to the 2 standing nato group and the two Atlantic patrol tasks.

If additional tasks are required to be meet then either an additional order for type 31 is placed or type 45 and type 26 are freed up for them by reducing to a single task group requirement.

Or you can live of hope of lots more cash…. Stop laughing at the back..

More funding will arrive but just enough to keep the wheels on the bus.

RN is going to get stretched now and it will begin to be everywhere and all at once by non state actors and proxies with the hope that HMG will pull everything back to the Euro Atlantic and concentrate on rebuilding a land Army for NATO.

A mix of Combatants and Patrol vessels is all the U.K. can afford so that’s what RN will get.

Keeping a couple of patrol boats in the Indo Pacific is extremely cheap and very sensible. Is having an SSN forward based in Australia really a priority for the UK? That will cost a gargantuan amount compared with a couple of OPVs. Where is the upside for the U.K. apart from selling submarines?

One escort covering the Red Sea and the Gulf plus the East coast of Africa clearly isn’t nearly enough.

A flash point could occur in Central America or Caribbean at any point so a permanent non combatant should be permanently assigned to patrol and provide stability. Perhaps we are to leave that to the US too?

A non combatant patrolling the West African coast and regularly supporting Forth is also extremely cheap and eminently sensible. A Frigate with CAMM, NSM and Mk41 cells just isn’t required and may actually be regarded as an escalation by some countries.

Isolationism isn’t a strategy, it’s an invitation.

Now is not the time for the U.K. to be handing out invitations.