Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

There is zero question marks over those locations ownership for as long as the uk wishes there to be. That’s the difference

And we come back to International law do we stand for and uphold it or look the other way when it suits us remember that the ICJ found that we illegally withheld Diego and that we should give it back this was then upheld in the UN

Now that dose not mean that we can't do some deal where by we agree to give it back as long as we can lease it for 150 year

[SW1]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

There is zero question marks over those locations ownership for as long as the uk wishes there to be. That’s the difference

And we come back to International law do we stand for and uphold it or look the other way when it suits us remember that the ICJ found that we illegally withheld Diego and that we should give it back this was then upheld in the UN

Now that dose not mean that we can't do some deal where by we agree to give it back as long as we can lease it for 150 year

The ICJ is a puppet organisation that only offers advisory opinions then passes issues to the UN Security Council for enforcement. The UN Security Council never passed any resolution that we illegally withheld Diego Garcia.

[new guy]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

There is zero question marks over those locations ownership for as long as the uk wishes there to be. That’s the difference

And we come back to International law do we stand for and uphold it or look the other way when it suits us remember that the ICJ found that we illegally withheld Diego and that we should give it back this was then upheld in the UN

Now that dose not mean that we can't do some deal where by we agree to give it back as long as we can lease it for 150 year

Why would we do that? Just make it all part of the UK like France and be done with it.

[Pte. James Frazer]

Our energy security isn’t dependent on the region now. More energy from the Middle East goes east.

Lot's goes to Europe, and if the western world cared at all about security it would be doing everything possible to decouple itself from petro-states.

Yes it does but I was more specifically talking about us. Yes but currently there is the opposite thanks to an obsession with weather dependent energy generation.

Not just energy...container ships etc. heading for Felixstowe, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg....lot's of vested interests using Red Sea and Suez. Complete decoupling from wider Asia is unrealistic

[SW1]

Our energy security isn’t dependent on the region now. More energy from the Middle East goes east.

Lot's goes to Europe, and if the western world cared at all about security it would be doing everything possible to decouple itself from petro-states.

Yes it does but I was more specifically talking about us. Yes but currently there is the opposite thanks to an obsession with weather dependent energy generation.

Not just energy...container ships etc. heading for Felixstowe, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg....lot's of vested interests using Red Sea and Suez. Complete decoupling from wider Asia is unrealistic

Complete decoupling no but we have built an economic model on cheap energy from Russia and cheap manufacturing from China.

Then let lots of those vested interests take on an equal share in ensuring passage in the Red Sea..

the Baltic dry index has largely returned to normal and while the Shanghai container index is elevated it too is now falling. The less we need to ship through that route the less it becomes relevant. Re-shoring and shortening of supply lines or for want of term re industrialisation of in particularly Western European economies is long overdue in removing our reliance on Chinese in particular manufacturing.

[Tempest414]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

There is zero question marks over those locations ownership for as long as the uk wishes there to be. That’s the difference

And we come back to International law do we stand for and uphold it or look the other way when it suits us remember that the ICJ found that we illegally withheld Diego and that we should give it back this was then upheld in the UN

Now that dose not mean that we can't do some deal where by we agree to give it back as long as we can lease it for 150 year

The ICJ is a puppet organisation that only offers advisory opinions then passes issues to the UN Security Council for enforcement. The UN Security Council never passed any resolution that we illegally withheld Diego Garcia.

The ICJ like or not is the highest count on the planet also we all know that the UNSC is now dead with India and other large states starting the process of removing the vetoes of the 5 full members ( rightly so )

And so of course the UNSC didn't pass a resolution because the UK and US vetoed it they were not going to vote against them self

As I said it is all about weather we uphold international law or look the other way when it suits us

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -mauritius

[SW1]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

There is zero question marks over those locations ownership for as long as the uk wishes there to be. That’s the difference

And we come back to International law do we stand for and uphold it or look the other way when it suits us remember that the ICJ found that we illegally withheld Diego and that we should give it back this was then upheld in the UN

Now that dose not mean that we can't do some deal where by we agree to give it back as long as we can lease it for 150 year

The ICJ is a puppet organisation that only offers advisory opinions then passes issues to the UN Security Council for enforcement. The UN Security Council never passed any resolution that we illegally withheld Diego Garcia.

The ICJ like or not is the highest count on the planet also we all know that the UNSC is now dead with India and other large states starting the process of removing the vetoes of the 5 full members ( rightly so )

And so of course the UNSC didn't pass a resolution because the UK and US vetoed it they were not going to vote against them self

As I said it is all about weather we uphold international law or look the other way when it suits us

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -mauritius

Hahaha no it’s not

There’s no process to remove veto’s if you think that you clearly don’t understand how it works.

[new guy]

Have wondered whether a deal could be for with Cyprus to expand out the area around Akrotiri to include part of Limassol port to create a sovereign dock area, in return for areas elsewhere. Ayios Nikolaos and access to it is key, but the rest could be swapped without any strategic impact.

Would be easier to extend the port probably.

[Pte. James Frazer]

Our energy security isn’t dependent on the region now. More energy from the Middle East goes east.

Lot's goes to Europe, and if the western world cared at all about security it would be doing everything possible to decouple itself from petro-states.

Yes it does but I was more specifically talking about us. Yes but currently there is the opposite thanks to an obsession with weather dependent energy generation.

Not just energy...container ships etc. heading for Felixstowe, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg....lot's of vested interests using Red Sea and Suez. Complete decoupling from wider Asia is unrealistic

Complete decoupling no but we have built an economic model on cheap energy from Russia and cheap manufacturing from China.

Then let lots of those vested interests take on an equal share in ensuring passage in the Red Sea..

the Baltic dry index has largely returned to normal and while the Shanghai container index is elevated it too is now falling. The less we need to ship through that route the less it becomes relevant. Re-shoring and shortening of supply lines or for want of term re industrialisation of in particularly Western European economies is long overdue in removing our reliance on Chinese in particular manufacturing.

We are in agreement....which was my inference. The countries mentioned with large container ports plus those with large shipping lines (Italy, France and Denmark etc) ought to be actively helping protect their interests, not just 'the rules based system'.

Agreed also that reshoring of high value and strategically important manufacturing should be prioritised, but this will take assets that our political classes are not blessed with: vision, time and financial resources for incentives (ref: Sleepy Joe's Inflation Reduction Act).

Don't think we should prioritise or even try to reshore all consumer product manufacturing.

Our mantra is predicated on our historical perspective "we're a trading nation"....

[Tempest414]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

There is zero question marks over those locations ownership for as long as the uk wishes there to be. That’s the difference

And we come back to International law do we stand for and uphold it or look the other way when it suits us remember that the ICJ found that we illegally withheld Diego and that we should give it back this was then upheld in the UN

Now that dose not mean that we can't do some deal where by we agree to give it back as long as we can lease it for 150 year

The ICJ is a puppet organisation that only offers advisory opinions then passes issues to the UN Security Council for enforcement. The UN Security Council never passed any resolution that we illegally withheld Diego Garcia.

The ICJ like or not is the highest count on the planet also we all know that the UNSC is now dead with India and other large states starting the process of removing the vetoes of the 5 full members ( rightly so )

And so of course the UNSC didn't pass a resolution because the UK and US vetoed it they were not going to vote against them self

As I said it is all about weather we uphold international law or look the other way when it suits us

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -mauritius

Hahaha no it’s not

There’s no process to remove veto’s if you think that you clearly don’t understand how it works.

it will come

[tomuk]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

None of these claims are relevant unless the UK makes it so.

It isn't entirely in the UKs power. It was reported that we minded to hand Diego Garcia to Mauritius. Gibraltar is supposedly joining Schengen and what might happen in the future if we rejoin the EU. Same with Cyprus would we stand in the way of a final peace settlement for an airbase?

[new guy]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

None of these claims are relevant unless the UK makes it so.

It isn't entirely in the UKs power. It was reported that we minded to hand Diego Garcia to Mauritius. Gibraltar is supposedly joining Schengen and what might happen in the future if we rejoin the EU. Same with Cyprus would we stand in the way of a final peace settlement for an airbase?

Sorry, that’s all utter bullshit, stirred up by lefties/liberals who think only the UK needs to play to rules but none else has to. Plus look at the referendum in Gibraltar or Falklands - no one wants it. It’s stirred up by countries who cause genocide and only we in the UK take it seriously - it’s shite and we should just grow some balls - we’ll need them for what’s coming.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Fascinating warship discussion here chaps...

[Tempest414]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

None of these claims are relevant unless the UK makes it so.

It isn't entirely in the UKs power. It was reported that we minded to hand Diego Garcia to Mauritius. Gibraltar is supposedly joining Schengen and what might happen in the future if we rejoin the EU. Same with Cyprus would we stand in the way of a final peace settlement for an airbase?

Sorry, that’s all utter bullshit, stirred up by lefties/liberals who think only the UK needs to play to rules but none else has to. Plus look at the referendum in Gibraltar or Falklands - no one wants it. It’s stirred up by countries who cause genocide and only we in the UK take it seriously - it’s shite and we should just grow some balls - we’ll need them for what’s coming.

Here's the rub I am all for self determination the rules based order and international law it is what allowed us in the UK to vote on Bexit it is what allows the Scots , Falkland Islanders & Gib to stay under the UK but it also allows those who want there rightful lands back to have them

Now many on there have sat on there moral high horse for years shouting from the rooftops about the rules based order and international law but now when the West is breaking international law committing war crimes and even plusably committing genocide they look the other way or even worse try and defend the undefendable

SO NOW IT TIME IF YOU WANT THE RULES BASED ORDER AND INTERNATIONAL LAW TO GROW SOME F-IN BOLLOCKS AND DEFEND THEM if not stop trying to hold other to rules and laws you will uphold yourself. The UK should not be playing by the fucking rules but it should following the rules , upholding the rules , enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the rules no matter if they are friend or foe

[Tempest414]

So no matter who owns Diego Garcia the US will be able to keep its base there on a long term lease so it would be a great place for us to base any escorts , OPV's or MRSS out of to cover the Indian Ocean , Gulf , and East Africa

[new guy]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

None of these claims are relevant unless the UK makes it so.

It isn't entirely in the UKs power. It was reported that we minded to hand Diego Garcia to Mauritius. Gibraltar is supposedly joining Schengen and what might happen in the future if we rejoin the EU. Same with Cyprus would we stand in the way of a final peace settlement for an airbase?

Sorry, that’s all utter bullshit, stirred up by lefties/liberals who think only the UK needs to play to rules but none else has to. Plus look at the referendum in Gibraltar or Falklands - no one wants it. It’s stirred up by countries who cause genocide and only we in the UK take it seriously - it’s shite and we should just grow some balls - we’ll need them for what’s coming.

Here's the rub I am all for self determination the rules based order and international law it is what allowed us in the UK to vote on Bexit it is what allows the Scots , Falkland Islanders & Gib to stay under the UK but it also allows those who want there rightful lands back to have them

Now many on there have sat on there moral high horse for years shouting from the rooftops about the rules based order and international law but now when the West is breaking international law committing war crimes and even plusably committing genocide they look the other way or even worse try and defend the undefendable

SO NOW IT TIME IF YOU WANT THE RULES BASED ORDER AND INTERNATIONAL LAW TO GROW SOME F-IN BOLLOCKS AND DEFEND THEM if not stop trying to hold other to rules and laws you will uphold yourself. The UK should not be playing by the fucking rules but it should following the rules , upholding the rules , enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the rules no matter if they are friend or foe

Naive - having a US/UK BIOT base has more to give to world security than giving a few rocks back to 10’s of people. Falklands were British before Argentina became a country - how about Argentina giving land back to the natives?Gibralltar has been British longer than most states have been American, Spain shouts foul whilst it has stolen land from Morocco.

Its people playing the imperialist card purely to deflect from genocide and worse. What’s worse is that people are falling for it.

[Tempest414]

If you are going to sink long term invest into facilities you do it in places you own

So in the UK then? As Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia all have question marks over their ownership. And I say that without inferring any merit or otherwise to those claims.

None of these claims are relevant unless the UK makes it so.

It isn't entirely in the UKs power. It was reported that we minded to hand Diego Garcia to Mauritius. Gibraltar is supposedly joining Schengen and what might happen in the future if we rejoin the EU. Same with Cyprus would we stand in the way of a final peace settlement for an airbase?

Sorry, that’s all utter bullshit, stirred up by lefties/liberals who think only the UK needs to play to rules but none else has to. Plus look at the referendum in Gibraltar or Falklands - no one wants it. It’s stirred up by countries who cause genocide and only we in the UK take it seriously - it’s shite and we should just grow some balls - we’ll need them for what’s coming.

Here's the rub I am all for self determination the rules based order and international law it is what allowed us in the UK to vote on Bexit it is what allows the Scots , Falkland Islanders & Gib to stay under the UK but it also allows those who want there rightful lands back to have them

Now many on there have sat on there moral high horse for years shouting from the rooftops about the rules based order and international law but now when the West is breaking international law committing war crimes and even plusably committing genocide they look the other way or even worse try and defend the undefendable

SO NOW IT TIME IF YOU WANT THE RULES BASED ORDER AND INTERNATIONAL LAW TO GROW SOME F-IN BOLLOCKS AND DEFEND THEM if not stop trying to hold other to rules and laws you will uphold yourself. The UK should not be playing by the fucking rules but it should following the rules , upholding the rules , enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the rules no matter if they are friend or foe

Naive - having a US/UK BIOT base has more to give to world security than giving a few rocks back to 10’s of people. Falklands were British before Argentina became a country - how about Argentina giving land back to the natives?Gibralltar has been British longer than most states have been American, Spain shouts foul whilst it has stolen land from Morocco.

Its people playing the imperialist card purely to deflect from genocide and worse. What’s worse is that people are falling for it.

I am fine with this but lets all stop talking about international law and the rules based order when it is in our favour and looking the other way when it is not and get on doing what is best for us and mates and let other do the same and if this means we have to fight Russia or China or whoever for what we want fine

By the way who do you think is committing genocide right now and who is playing the imperialist card to deflect from it

[Repulse]

Russia in Ukraine, China in its western districts

[Tempest414]

Russia in Ukraine, China in its western districts

Yes I agree with both of these. Anyone else the RSF in Sudan , Israel in Gaza maybe

[wargame_insomniac]

Fascinating warship discussion here chaps...

Surely there are topics somewhere else for all this stuff?

[Poiuytrewq]

So having an OPV in the Indo Pacific isn't isolationism but having an SSN is?

Leaving gaps for others to exploit creates vacuums.

Are these vacuums better being filled autocracies or democracies?

History shows that peace brings prosperity.

Allowing autocracies to fill vacuums will not bring peace.

The whole AUKUS construct is multiple times more important than an OPV visiting the Pitcairn's pop 40 or having a cockers P in the Nicobars.

So apart from selling submarines explain why it is so important that one of the two or three active U.K. SSNs is forward based in Australia?

Is it really a priority for the U.K. with only seven SSNs or would be it more of a priority if the U.K. had ten or twelve SSNs?

An OPV is as much as an invite then no presence at all.

Demonstrably false.

If the decision had not of been taken to withdraw HMS Endurance from the patrol tasking around the Falklands and across the South Atlantic would 1982 have played out differently?

[Poiuytrewq]

The RN doesn’t need to be everywhere it needs to be where it supports government strategy and the future economy.

RN needs to help to stabilise and maintain peace.

That doesn’t necessarily require a combatant everywhere.

There is nothing I have mentioned that suggests concentrating on building up the army in Europe or pulling back I have mentioned a set of priorities though.

Building a BAOR style land army is the easy option for the U.K. but if it artificially constrains RN by diverting funding then it’s a foolish endeavour. It’s simply not a priority for the U.K. or NATO. Perhaps we agree on this.

Most of the Euro NATO countries have shown a complete disinterest in getting involved in the Red Sea which is totally predictable.

Leaving it to the US, UK, France and Japan etc is fine but the other Euro NATO countries need to build the land army deterrent instead as their main contribution.

Maybe more than a single escort in Arabia and east Africa is required but it’s a lower priority than the nato and Atlantic tasks imo.

Absolutley but expanding the number of RNs non-combatant patrol vessels actually increases RNs ability to concentrate it’s combatants where they will have the most effect.

Having 3x T31 EoS with another 4x T31 operating from the U.K. would be a game changing capability. Allowing the T45/T26 to concentrate on the CSG and TAPS would just increase effectiveness further.

A modest class of OPV+ are the key to unlocking the capability IMO however if funding increased it could be achieved in other ways.

Yes having an ssn in the pacific is a priority as AUKUS is the naval priority. The upside of selling submarines is pretty huge, as is the need to contain China and having Australia able to contribute to it means we are secure as a result. The ssn is the principle capability for Pacific warfare at sea.

So why remove it from the North Atlantic? There currently is no requirement for warfare at sea in the Pacific. It will be a colossal strategic failure if the U.K. SSNs are ever required for warfighting at sea in the Pacific.

You can’t have it both ways.

If the UK is to concentrate on the Euro Atlantic and let the US and Australia deal with the Indo Pacific sending one of the U.K.’s precious SSNs permanently to the Indo Pacific is strategic gobbledygook. Unless of course selling submarines is the priority.

How you think sending actual warships to locations of interest is isolationism rather than unarmed offshore vessels is baffling.

Im baffled why you are baffled.

IMO the best strategy for RN within the current fiscal envelope is to increase mass through building more non combatant OPV+ vessels in the short term whilst proceeding with a policy of increasing combatant numbers by 2040. It is also imperative that ALL Frigates and Destroyers are fully maximised, fully armed and fully crewed.

The OPV+ vessels are cost effective and can maintain a high number of days at sea with a minimal crew allocation. The combatants are the opposite.

The OPV and OPV+ vessels patrol the low threat areas.

The T31s patrol the higher threat areas.

The T46/T26 concentrate on the CSG and TAPs.

Completely proportionate and affordable.

Just my opinion.

[Tempest414]

So lets say we built 3 or 4 new OPV+ to replace the RB1's and then upgraded the RB2's with a 57mm and Peregrine UAV plus 1.5 crewed the 5 Type 31's this could allow

2 x type 31 and 2 x OPV+ EoS
1 x OPV+ on AP-N
3 x Type 31's , 5 x RB2+ and the IPS in the Atlantic
6 x Type 45 and 8 x type 26 for CSG , TAPS , ARG

[SW1]

The RN doesn’t need to be everywhere it needs to be where it supports government strategy and the future economy.

RN needs to help to stabilise and maintain peace.

That doesn’t necessarily require a combatant everywhere.

There is nothing I have mentioned that suggests concentrating on building up the army in Europe or pulling back I have mentioned a set of priorities though.

Building a BAOR style land army is the easy option for the U.K. but if it artificially constrains RN by diverting funding then it’s a foolish endeavour. It’s simply not a priority for the U.K. or NATO. Perhaps we agree on this.

Most of the Euro NATO countries have shown a complete disinterest in getting involved in the Red Sea which is totally predictable.

Leaving it to the US, UK, France and Japan etc is fine but the other Euro NATO countries need to build the land army deterrent instead as their main contribution.

Maybe more than a single escort in Arabia and east Africa is required but it’s a lower priority than the nato and Atlantic tasks imo.

Absolutley but expanding the number of RNs non-combatant patrol vessels actually increases RNs ability to concentrate it’s combatants where they will have the most effect.

Having 3x T31 EoS with another 4x T31 operating from the U.K. would be a game changing capability. Allowing the T45/T26 to concentrate on the CSG and TAPS would just increase effectiveness further.

A modest class of OPV+ are the key to unlocking the capability IMO however if funding increased it could be achieved in other ways.

Yes having an ssn in the pacific is a priority as AUKUS is the naval priority. The upside of selling submarines is pretty huge, as is the need to contain China and having Australia able to contribute to it means we are secure as a result. The ssn is the principle capability for Pacific warfare at sea.

So why remove it from the North Atlantic? There currently is no requirement for warfare at sea in the Pacific. It will be a colossal strategic failure if the U.K. SSNs are ever required for warfighting at sea in the Pacific.

You can’t have it both ways.

If the UK is to concentrate on the Euro Atlantic and let the US and Australia deal with the Indo Pacific sending one of the U.K.’s precious SSNs permanently to the Indo Pacific is strategic gobbledygook. Unless of course selling submarines is the priority.

How you think sending actual warships to locations of interest is isolationism rather than unarmed offshore vessels is baffling.

Im baffled why you are baffled.

IMO the best strategy for RN within the current fiscal envelope is to increase mass through building more non combatant OPV+ vessels in the short term whilst proceeding with a policy of increasing combatant numbers by 2040. It is also imperative that ALL Frigates and Destroyers are fully maximised, fully armed and fully crewed.

The OPV+ vessels are cost effective and can maintain a high number of days at sea with a minimal crew allocation. The combatants are the opposite.

The OPV and OPV+ vessels patrol the low threat areas.

The T31s patrol the higher threat areas.

The T46/T26 concentrate on the CSG and TAPs.

Completely proportionate and affordable.

Just my opinion.

The RN maintains safe passage at sea where it is most beneficial to the UK. It does not need to be everywhere.

You seem to think concentrating on the euro and Atlantic areas is about BOAR reforming. Not sure why you think this but it isn’t. There is more than enough to do around the north south Atlantic, Mediterranean and Baltic to more than keep the RN busy and where it matters most to our economy.

Denmark, Germany, Italy and Greece are supposedly sending escorts to the Red Sea.


No it doesnt adding non combatants ships just adds non combatant ships and removes resource and crew, tries to be all things to all people everywhere rather than concentrating in priority areas that are important to us.

The AUKUS pack is the single most important naval technology and strategic agreement since Polaris. It builds a capability with Australia that means we don’t need to be there long term because they have the capability to work with the US to contain China as we do here with the US against Russia in a similar vein to why we set up the Royal Australian navy in the first place! SSNs are both the principle means of intelligence gathering at sea in peace and containment asset in war against high end opponents. It isn’t strategic gobbledygook it’s actually strategic rather than simple looking at the present and reacting. Short term reduction in the Atlantic for a long term security gain. More needs to be spent on submarines not less and if that means less surface fleet then less surface fleet it is.


Opv plus doesn’t exist nor when you start adding things to make it plus will it be any cheaper than what we are doing now. Where are the low threat areas that we have interest in?

Proliferation of drone technology to anti western actors state and none state at various strategically important locations are requiring increased situational awareness and anti air/surface capabilities to be used.

[Repulse]

Fascinating warship discussion here chaps...

Surely there are topics somewhere else for all this stuff?

Apologies, appreciate this went on too long, but I think it is linked - whether and where we have forward operating bases has a significant impact on the composition of the escort fleet.