Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4842
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 17:19 Why not do it to all five? and buy five more. You obsession with doing down T31 is ridiculous, sell two for tuppence ha'penny to fund nothing.
Because without new money we can’t modify the three and if sold straight from the production line it will be more than if we tie them up alongside for a few years. Also, why would we want to buy more when money should be spent on accelerating the T83 - your inability to see we have the wrong platform is bizarre.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5644
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

tomuk wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 17:16
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 16:29
new guy wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 15:40 1) CAMM systems are said to be similar to PAMS. If so, and CAMM can be integrated into TACTICOS with no issue, could we not reverse it?
Doable. And it will cost as much as T45, of course? This is the whole point I’m stating. I can see no reason an AAW ship with SeaViper on TACTICOS can be cheaper than a T45?
2) Is then RN going away from Euro to the US VLS sphere, especially with AUKUS?
Sorry I could not understand your point..
I really don't get your logic around the cost of T45, we are already buying T31, we are talking about extras not a whole ship, T45 was expensive not just because of Sea Viper but the IEP development too, not forgetting the changes to programme 12 to 6 and merger of BAE and Vospers.
Oh, sorry, I am talking about total cost, not additional. Now T31 is a 2B GBP program, 400M GBP average. And, I’m just saying it will be something like 4.1G GBP total, or 830M GBP average.

——————-
Dutch DZP class was 400M GBP (600M Euro) average on early 2000s. Multiplying 20 years of 3.7% “defense inflation” (by MOD uk) makes it 830M GBP.

Of course, DZP class’s VLS of 40cells is a bit larger than 32. But, Dutch can build warship cheaper than UK, thanks to healthy amount of commercial ship building. So, 830M GBP average is right in the middle, or even a bit optimistic price, for me.

——————
By the way, T45 was 650M GBP per unit excluding all development costs. In other words, we saved 1.3B GBP, not 2B GBP, by cancelling hull 7 and 8. Inflation corrected for 15 years, it becomes 1.1B GBP in 2024 price, or 5.5B GBP for 5 hulls.

In summary, I’m just saying BMD capable AAW T31 program will cost 2-3Bn GBP more, in addition to the currently plans 2B GBP.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Ron5

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1734
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Repulse wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 19:31
tomuk wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 17:19 Why not do it to all five? and buy five more. You obsession with doing down T31 is ridiculous, sell two for tuppence ha'penny to fund nothing.
Because without new money we can’t modify the three and if sold straight from the production line it will be more than if we tie them up alongside for a few years. Also, why would we want to buy more when money should be spent on accelerating the T83 - your inability to see we have the wrong platform is bizarre.
Your inability to see you are wrong is truly bizarre.

Markam
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 22 Mar 2024, 13:40
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Markam »

Perhaps we can salvage some of the Type 45 systems for later improvements to the Type 31, provided someone doesn't want to buy them outright.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4842
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 23:38
Repulse wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 19:31
tomuk wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 17:19 Why not do it to all five? and buy five more. You obsession with doing down T31 is ridiculous, sell two for tuppence ha'penny to fund nothing.
Because without new money we can’t modify the three and if sold straight from the production line it will be more than if we tie them up alongside for a few years. Also, why would we want to buy more when money should be spent on accelerating the T83 - your inability to see we have the wrong platform is bizarre.
Your inability to see you are wrong is truly bizarre.
Oh dear - how old are you? I’m stopping now not because you’ve won the argument, you haven’t made one, because it must be getting boring for everyone.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Ron5
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2906
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

tomuk wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 17:19
Repulse wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 16:23
SW1 wrote: 21 Apr 2024, 16:00 In very high end situations why not use type 31 as a missile barge?

If they do end up fitting mk41 at some point fill it with sm3. If it’s within a task group a type 45 or a usn destroyer can do the tracking and sensing. Or if it’s around nato/uk territories let the assure systems do the hard bit.

No need for aster 30 integration or fancy new radars. We just need to buy the missiles.

And when operating in all other things it does what it already designed to do escort duty for which it’s camm system is perfectly acceptable.
That’s mainly my thought, in the short term upgrade three T31s to sail with the CSG integrated with at least one T45 and the upgraded radar / a/c from the carrier. Frees up T45s to cover an EoS deployment and FRE, which can also join the CSG if the threat level dictates.

I would say though that given its a modest upgrade add SMART-L-EWC to the T31s to enable them to contribute to BMD.

Relatively cost neutral as we can sell the first two T31s to pay for it.
Why not do it to all five? and buy five more. You obsession with doing down T31 is ridiculous, sell two for tuppence ha'penny to fund nothing.
And all that in a situation where the RN is terribly short of escorts... :shock:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1176
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Double post - please ignore.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1176
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 20 Apr 2024, 09:35 https://www.navylookout.com/snapshot-th ... pril-2024/

Depressing situation and a reminder that we have a lot to do to get the 16 FFs/DDs (ignoring HMS Westminster) crewed and in better shape before we get excited about expansion.
Somerset is a big disappointment for me - I had wondered why we had nt heard anything since fitted with NSM canisters in Norway. It will be good to know that NSM works well with RN systems and can the be rolled out to all 11 ships due to get initially order of NSM.

Jdam
Senior Member
Posts: 1001
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jdam »

Can we roll NSM out to other ships or does it need to be tested first?

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1138
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Apr 2024, 11:16
Repulse wrote: 20 Apr 2024, 09:35 https://www.navylookout.com/snapshot-th ... pril-2024/

Depressing situation and a reminder that we have a lot to do to get the 16 FFs/DDs (ignoring HMS Westminster) crewed and in better shape before we get excited about expansion.
Somerset is a big disappointment for me - I had wondered why we had nt heard anything since fitted with NSM canisters in Norway. It will be good to know that NSM works well with RN systems and can the be rolled out to all 11 ships due to get initially order of NSM.
Personally, given the age of the T23 platform, I would not be trying to integrate any new systems. IMHO the LIFEX should be exactly that, Life Extension, not enhancement. If anything, take equipment like the mk8 off and focus T23 on core ASW, to nurse that capability through to early 2030s.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
Clive F

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1734
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

SD67 wrote: 22 Apr 2024, 13:10
wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Apr 2024, 11:16
Repulse wrote: 20 Apr 2024, 09:35 https://www.navylookout.com/snapshot-th ... pril-2024/

Depressing situation and a reminder that we have a lot to do to get the 16 FFs/DDs (ignoring HMS Westminster) crewed and in better shape before we get excited about expansion.
Somerset is a big disappointment for me - I had wondered why we had nt heard anything since fitted with NSM canisters in Norway. It will be good to know that NSM works well with RN systems and can the be rolled out to all 11 ships due to get initially order of NSM.
Personally, given the age of the T23 platform, I would not be trying to integrate any new systems. IMHO the LIFEX should be exactly that, Life Extension, not enhancement. If anything, take equipment like the mk8 off and focus T23 on core ASW, to nurse that capability through to early 2030s.
Carrying some sort of anti ship weapon is surely a core requirement of a frigate, Harpoon has been left untouched to become obsolete so NSM is the 'interim' replacement. NSM should be a relatively easy bolt and can be done in a somewhat standalone but it still needs testing and validation.

If the T23s are going to be here until the mid 2030s then work will be need to keep them in the game.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1176
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 20 Apr 2024, 15:16 On T13GP. I will address my view..,

1: Armament level of a GP frigate shall be "aligned" to the threat level.

In pre-Red Sea Houthi conflict era, GP-frigate must be aligned to KIPION. The "as-is" armament level of, 1x 57mm gun, 2x 40mm guns, 12 CAMM, with up to 2x Wildcat, is very good match to counter "gray-zone" war against Iran.

In post-Red Sea era, I agree improving AAW capability will be nice. But, still the KIPION task remains. Different from some arguments, I think KIPION is a great contribution of UK and also UK needs it. Ukrainan war and COVID told us that, having a diversity in crucial import material (such as oil) is essential. Thus, 24 or 36 CAMM is good to have.

2: Improving AAW capability of frigates

As I said, in the post-Red Sea era, I agree improving AAW capability is important. Here, I think what is needed will be to

- introduce CAMM-ER. For example, T26 can have 24 CAMM-ER and 24 CAMM. T31 with 12 CAMM-ER and 24 CAMM. Merit of CAMM-ER is not its range. More its higher kinetic power thanks to its larger booster, actually, its DUAL PULSE nature of the booster. Higher speed to move, and larger kinetic energy in final phase, are essential to improve kill probability, especially against higher speed target.

- And, improve the SeaCeptor system software to enable "a bit better than C-DOME (Israeli)" anti-ballistic missile defense. Surely, not area BMD. Just point/local-area BMD. Not against long-range ballistic missile, but only for short and mid-short BMD. Israel's C-DOME's missile Tamir-missile has much lower spec compared to CAMM. Yes, some updates are needed on CAMM, but adding a "BMD capability a bit better than C-DOME" on SeaCeptor system is well within the scope, I think. Again, of course, not for area-BMD. Just for point-BMD.

As this improvement can be applied to ALL escorts, not only T31, but also T26 and even T45, it will significantly improve RN AAW capability.

3: If the world gets worse, UK can further improve T31, "aligned" to the threat level.

Modern warship needs long time to build. When the world gets dangerous, building new escorts will cost a lot and take huge time. But, improving the equipment level of GP frigates can be done much faster.

So, for me, having 5 GP frigates makes sense in two aspects.

- KIPION escort is needed = an asset to fight a gray-zone war.
- "can be up-armed" escort is needed. In other words, a ship with large amount of "FFBNW".

This is my view.
Agree 100% with both posts with the exception of last part re FFBNW. FFBNW was acceptable during period of peace. But with Global tensions rising thanks to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, together with proxy states, we can no longer risk it to the previous extent.

Building one additional of both T26 & T31 makes sense in terms of giving both Govan and Rosyth a guaranteed extra period of work (until future RN plans can be finalised), plus greater operational RN resilience when future refits and maintenance is needed, whilst still having sufficient ships available for active taskings.

Whilst I think that all T31's need upgrades to better carry out a wider variety of missions, I completely agree that need to be kept on cheaper side. I would save Mk41 VLS upgrades for Tier-One warfighting escorts. NSM Canisters and extra CAMM would give T31's some extra ASuW and AAW punch.But nor require too many extra crew or refit time or be too expensive.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post (total 3):
serge750donald_of_tokyojedibeeftrix

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5804
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Apr 2024, 18:46
Agree 100% with both posts with the exception of last part re FFBNW. FFBNW was acceptable during period of peace. But with Global tensions rising thanks to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, together with proxy states, we can no longer risk it to the previous extent.

Building one additional of both T26 & T31 makes sense in terms of giving both Govan and Rosyth a guaranteed extra period of work (until future RN plans can be finalised), plus greater operational RN resilience when future refits and maintenance is needed, whilst still having sufficient ships available for active taskings.

Whilst I think that all T31's need upgrades to better carry out a wider variety of missions, I completely agree that need to be kept on cheaper side. I would save Mk41 VLS upgrades for Tier-One warfighting escorts. NSM Canisters and extra CAMM would give T31's some extra ASuW and AAW punch.But nor require too many extra crew or refit time or be too expensive.

Very much depends. Fitted for but not with is to an extent the basis of the 80% solution or the idea behind spiral development. In that I might add longer range missiles or add capability x at a later date. Or I may update the software in the radar/sonar/command system to do something more. These may not be required for its initial missions but may add time and risk to the build schedule. There does however need to be a thru life support budget that isn’t raided as an easy target for efficiency savings..

On crew numbers how many crew does the likes of the FDI/danish siblings ect have with such systems

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5687
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 22 Apr 2024, 19:38
wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Apr 2024, 18:46
Agree 100% with both posts with the exception of last part re FFBNW. FFBNW was acceptable during period of peace. But with Global tensions rising thanks to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, together with proxy states, we can no longer risk it to the previous extent.

Building one additional of both T26 & T31 makes sense in terms of giving both Govan and Rosyth a guaranteed extra period of work (until future RN plans can be finalised), plus greater operational RN resilience when future refits and maintenance is needed, whilst still having sufficient ships available for active taskings.

Whilst I think that all T31's need upgrades to better carry out a wider variety of missions, I completely agree that need to be kept on cheaper side. I would save Mk41 VLS upgrades for Tier-One warfighting escorts. NSM Canisters and extra CAMM would give T31's some extra ASuW and AAW punch.But nor require too many extra crew or refit time or be too expensive.

Very much depends. Fitted for but not with is to an extent the basis of the 80% solution or the idea behind spiral development. In that I might add longer range missiles or add capability x at a later date. Or I may update the software in the radar/sonar/command system to do something more. These may not be required for its initial missions but may add time and risk to the build schedule. There does however need to be a thru life support budget that isn’t raided as an easy target for efficiency savings..

On crew numbers how many crew does the likes of the FDI/danish siblings ect have with such systems
What we know is IH class has 117 crew not including Helo detachment the ship can be sailed and systems /weapons worked with 96 crew but they found after FOST that they need the extra crew for battle damage if I remember rightly they said that a IH class can be moved with crew of 25 including 1 radar operator and 1 weapons officer for basic cover
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
SW1

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1734
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 Apr 2024, 11:42
SW1 wrote: 22 Apr 2024, 19:38
wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Apr 2024, 18:46
Agree 100% with both posts with the exception of last part re FFBNW. FFBNW was acceptable during period of peace. But with Global tensions rising thanks to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, together with proxy states, we can no longer risk it to the previous extent.

Building one additional of both T26 & T31 makes sense in terms of giving both Govan and Rosyth a guaranteed extra period of work (until future RN plans can be finalised), plus greater operational RN resilience when future refits and maintenance is needed, whilst still having sufficient ships available for active taskings.

Whilst I think that all T31's need upgrades to better carry out a wider variety of missions, I completely agree that need to be kept on cheaper side. I would save Mk41 VLS upgrades for Tier-One warfighting escorts. NSM Canisters and extra CAMM would give T31's some extra ASuW and AAW punch.But nor require too many extra crew or refit time or be too expensive.

Very much depends. Fitted for but not with is to an extent the basis of the 80% solution or the idea behind spiral development. In that I might add longer range missiles or add capability x at a later date. Or I may update the software in the radar/sonar/command system to do something more. These may not be required for its initial missions but may add time and risk to the build schedule. There does however need to be a thru life support budget that isn’t raided as an easy target for efficiency savings..

On crew numbers how many crew does the likes of the FDI/danish siblings ect have with such systems
What we know is IH class has 117 crew not including Helo detachment the ship can be sailed and systems /weapons worked with 96 crew but they found after FOST that they need the extra crew for battle damage if I remember rightly they said that a IH class can be moved with crew of 25 including 1 radar operator and 1 weapons officer for basic cover
I seem to recall an interview with a Danish captain who suggested that they could transit the ship with less, 13?, a handful of crew on watch on the bridge and down in engineering.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
SW1

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

With the increase in defence spending could another T26 hull be commited to before the election or maybe the T32 plan resurface - hopefully not just another t31 batch - for delvery in the 30's....?
These users liked the author serge750 for the post:
Repulse

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5687
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

serge750 wrote: 23 Apr 2024, 19:36 With the increase in defence spending could another T26 hull be commited to before the election or maybe the T32 plan resurface - hopefully not just another t31 batch - for delvery in the 30's....?
There is no increase in defence spending just more hot air by a out going Tory party hoping that Labour will fall for it.

I was thinking however about any Norway deal and how the RN could win so here is my thinking

Norway commit to 5 ships meaning the build plan goes to 10 ships the RN agrees to giving up ships to Norway as long as they get 6 for the price of 5

from a build plan of 14 ships Norway would get ships 3,5,7,9,11 the RN would get the rest in the mean time the UK would order 3 more T-31's to cover the short full in escourt number. Next as BAE moves from T-26 to T-83 the first two T-83s would replace the first two T-31s before going on to replace the T-45's

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 553
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Tempest414 wrote: 24 Apr 2024, 09:08
I was thinking however about any Norway deal and how the RN could win so here is my thinking

Norway commit to 5 ships meaning the build plan goes to 10 ships the RN agrees to giving up ships to Norway as long as they get 6 for the price of 5

from a build plan of 14 ships Norway would get ships 3,5,7,9,11 the RN would get the rest in the mean time the UK would order 3 more T-31's to cover the short full in escourt number. Next as BAE moves from T-26 to T-83 the first two T-83s would replace the first two T-31s before going on to replace the T-45's
does not make me happy:
a) We end up with more inadequate non-specialist Frigates
b) We end up with fewer excellent specialist Frigates

To follow on from donald - On T13GP. I will address my view..

T31 is a dangerous mess that attempts to fix the problem of insufficient escorts by settling for a bland mid-tier escort that is neither fish nor fowl, but what it achieves is indaequately specialised (read: "capable") escorts for the task group (which the RN is now built around).
Worse still, it does so while consuming too much human/budget resource to justify a capablility that is limited to; sit here, protect yourself, look pretty.

I think there needs to be a wider gulf between the "high" and "lo". Yes, almost to the extent of the Black Swan concept.
Where I think we would veer away from this 'pure' concept is the desire to make sure the "lo" end is capable is hosting an adaptable array of UAV/UUV modules.
Black Swan with a mission space, if you will.

Simple enough to man and maintain that it can be deployed abroad for extended periods. i.e. Bahrain, etc.
Able to be a home for MCM or surveillance modules that support that forward deployment.
Limited self protection, i.e. sit here, protect yourself, but the important difference is that it is protecting the deployed mission module it is deployed with.
Nothing fancy, Bofors 30mm with a CMS/FCS and 3P, and a very limited CAMM magazine.
Yes, it would of course be able to host an EMF - in the mission space! - but that is in support of SF rather than a pretend 'amphib' for the commandos.
To the extent that it has a GP role it is scaled to 'escort compansion' for transit protection in the chokepoints that it will be deployed to anyway.

For me, this is the direction the T32 needs to go. And frankly, to achieve that end, I want to see the T31 sold on to another friendly Navy asap.
These users liked the author jedibeeftrix for the post:
Repulse

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5687
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 24 Apr 2024, 09:38
Tempest414 wrote: 24 Apr 2024, 09:08
I was thinking however about any Norway deal and how the RN could win so here is my thinking

Norway commit to 5 ships meaning the build plan goes to 10 ships the RN agrees to giving up ships to Norway as long as they get 6 for the price of 5

from a build plan of 14 ships Norway would get ships 3,5,7,9,11 the RN would get the rest in the mean time the UK would order 3 more T-31's to cover the short full in escourt number. Next as BAE moves from T-26 to T-83 the first two T-83s would replace the first two T-31s before going on to replace the T-45's
does not make me happy:
a) We end up with more inadequate non-specialist Frigates
b) We end up with fewer excellent specialist Frigates

To follow on from donald - On T13GP. I will address my view..

T31 is a dangerous mess that attempts to fix the problem of insufficient escorts by settling for a bland mid-tier escort that is neither fish nor fowl, but what it achieves is indaequately specialised (read: "capable") escorts for the task group (which the RN is now built around).
Worse still, it does so while consuming too much human/budget resource to justify a capablility that is limited to; sit here, protect yourself, look pretty.

I think there needs to be a wider gulf between the "high" and "lo". Yes, almost to the extent of the Black Swan concept.
Where I think we would veer away from this 'pure' concept is the desire to make sure the "lo" end is capable is hosting an adaptable array of UAV/UUV modules.
Black Swan with a mission space, if you will.

Simple enough to man and maintain that it can be deployed abroad for extended periods. i.e. Bahrain, etc.
Able to be a home for MCM or surveillance modules that support that forward deployment.
Limited self protection, i.e. sit here, protect yourself, but the important difference is that it is protecting the deployed mission module it is deployed with.
Nothing fancy, Bofors 30mm with a CMS/FCS and 3P, and a very limited CAMM magazine.
Yes, it would of course be able to host an EMF - in the mission space! - but that is in support of SF rather than a pretend 'amphib' for the commandos.
To the extent that it has a GP role it is scaled to 'escort compansion' for transit protection in the chokepoints that it will be deployed to anyway.

For me, this is the direction the T32 needs to go. And frankly, to achieve that end, I want to see the T31 sold on to another friendly Navy asap.
The problem is that your lo end ship is not that lo end as soon as you add CAMM you need to 3D radar and mid range CMS which drives up the price

Also the 3 extra T-31's would be stop gaps with the first 2 or 3 being sold on as T-26 and T-83 come on line also until we know for sure what we are getting with T-31 its is a little silly to knock it

Also had you read what I said we end up with more Tire 1 ships at the end

For me we need to Get Norway on board with T-26 we are already working with Norway on P-8's MPA adding T-26 would really drive up ASW ops

As said before my Lo end OPV would 100 meters have a hangar & fight dek plus covered and open working decks and have 2 x 40mm , 2 x 8 round LMM mounts plus 4 x 12.7 mm and I would start by giving the RB2's 1 x 40mm , 2 x 8 round LMM mount and 4 x 12.7mm as they can already operate a wide range of unmanned kit
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1138
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

IMHO the problem is state and non state actors are blending into one,the hi/lo distinction is becoming meaningless. I wouldn't be surprised if half of these "Houthi rebels" arrived last month on a flight from Tehran.

Everything is being uparmed. T45 are getting CAMM and eventually ABM. T31 boats 3 onwards likely getting mk41. I think what you're really describing is the River class replacement, as everything above an Archer class is going to need some kind of SAM.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2902
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 24 Apr 2024, 09:38 For me, this is the direction the T32 needs to go.
I was under the impression that that was pretty much what was intended for the T32 "frigate". It could even be a license-built version of the Vard NG OPV (possibly higher damage control measures) or something very similar.

Also assume you meant the Bofors 40mm (I would prefer 57mm + 2 x 30mm, but that's just me).

The ability to add different capabilities via pods and mission bays would make it a flexible "maid of all work", covering all low-end tasks

Now that the Mk41 upgrade plans seem to be mainstream, the only problem I have with the T31 is lack of an HMS (though it is planned to carry a small towed array as part of the SSTD system). That could be remedied, though the lack of trained sonar operators (that means the T23GPs effectively don't have sonar either) would still be an issue
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
jedibeeftrix
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1521
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Caribbean wrote: 24 Apr 2024, 10:41 Now that the Mk41 upgrade plans seem to be mainstream, the only problem I have with the T31 is lack of an HMS (though it is planned to carry a small towed array as part of the SSTD system). That could be remedied, though the lack of trained sonar operators (that means the T23GPs effectively don't have sonar either) would still be an issue
Iver Huitfeldt Class have the HMS Atlas ASO 94 fitted, whether to fit a HMS or a TAS is open to debate as pros and cons.

One possible low cost option is the lightweight, passive SEA KraitSense system along with their LWT launcher to give the T31 at least some ASW capability.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 553
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Tempest414 wrote: 24 Apr 2024, 10:34 The problem is that your lo end ship is not that lo end as soon as you add CAMM you need to 3D radar and mid range CMS which drives up the price

Also the 3 extra T-31's would be stop gaps with the first 2 or 3 being sold on as T-26 and T-83 come on line also until we know for sure what we are getting with T-31 its is a little silly to knock it
Also had you read what I said we end up with more Tire 1 ships at the end
For me we need to Get Norway on board with T-26 we are already working with Norway on P-8's MPA adding T-26 would really drive up ASW ops

As said before my Lo end OPV would 100 meters have a hangar & fight dek plus covered and open working decks and have 2 x 40mm , 2 x 8 round LMM mounts plus 4 x 12.7 mm and I would start by giving the RB2's 1 x 40mm , 2 x 8 round LMM mount and 4 x 12.7mm as they can already operate a wide range of unmanned kit
Re: my low end ship - yes, this is a problem. But the T31 certainly isn't an answer to that problem.

Re: T26 deliveries - I'm happy to make sacrifices to broaden the programme to include Norway - if the consequence is cheaper/more units for the RN.

Re: my Lo end OPV - i suppose my answer to the OPV upgunning condundrum is to not do so. It is to lower down the T32 to meet this elevated requirement.
SD67 wrote: 24 Apr 2024, 10:38 IMHO the problem is state and non state actors are blending into one,the hi/lo distinction is becoming meaningless. I wouldn't be surprised if half of these "Houthi rebels" arrived last month on a flight from Tehran.

Everything is being uparmed. T45 are getting CAMM and eventually ABM. T31 boats 3 onwards likely getting mk41. I think what you're really describing is the River class replacement, as everything above an Archer class is going to need some kind of SAM.
Crew/Maint cost for T31 is already high for its alleged purpose of taking over from RB2 in the forward deployed roles. Adding mk41 gives it a strike role, but still makes it a rubbish 'escort' in that it can still only provide basic self-protection in the air/sub-surface roles. And further increases the Crew/Maint cost!

My solution - as indicated above - to the OPV upgunning condundrum is to not do so. Rather, to lower down the T32 to meet this elevated required. In which case, stick mk41 on the T26 and T45.
Caribbean wrote: 24 Apr 2024, 10:41 I was under the impression that that was pretty much what was intended for the T32 "frigate". It could even be a license-built version of the Vard NG OPV (possibly higher damage control measures) or something very similar.

Also assume you meant the Bofors 40mm (I would prefer 57mm + 2 x 30mm, but that's just me).
The ability to add different capabilities via pods and mission bays would make it a flexible "maid of all work", covering all low-end tasks

Now that the Mk41 upgrade plans seem to be mainstream, the only problem I have with the T31 is lack of an HMS (though it is planned to carry a small towed array as part of the SSTD system). That could be remedied, though the lack of trained sonar operators (that means the T23GPs effectively don't have sonar either) would still be an issue
Re: our impression of role - possibly the problem here is that everyione is guessing. Is T32 a T31+ (with mk41 strike)? Is it a T31 with a massive EMF facility? Is it somehow going to be any of the above, and yet further reduce the Crew/Maint cost over the existing platform?

Re: my T32 idea - Yes I meant Bofors 40mm. I like it because it is the cheapest capable option, and possibly cheap enough to standardise upon across the fleet in favour of the 30mm already in use. Agreed on the "maid of all work", covering all low-end tasks.

But it'll still be a milque-toast escort, excelling at neither the AAW role or the ASW role. I would still argue that T31 is a dangerous distraction, and money should be put into a cheap T32's in order to maximise T26/T83 numbers.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1138
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 24 Apr 2024, 12:08
Re: my T32 idea - Yes I meant Bofors 40mm. I like it because it is the cheapest capable option, and possibly cheap enough to standardise upon across the fleet in favour of the 30mm already in use. Agreed on the "maid of all work", covering all low-end tasks.

But it'll still be a milque-toast escort, excelling at neither the AAW role or the ASW role. I would still argue that T31 is a dangerous distraction, and money should be put into a cheap T32's in order to maximise T26/T83 numbers.
So T32 becomes the River B2 replacement, forward deployed with a Mission bay, Hangar and 40mm Bofors. Sounds like a French type concept - Floreal-ish colonial sloop. Could be another exportable product.

I guess Rivers get gifted off to allies to release crew, or would you retain B2s for Home waters?

If the NO deal doesn't happen there is likely to be a gap between T26 and T83 so maybe an extra T26or 2 could be squeezed in.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5644
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

How much will it cost to buy the CUBEs?

How many man-powers will be needed to operate them?

To enable it, what asset are we going to sacrifice? Selling another T31 or two? (three remains?)

Modular system is good, I like it. But, it will not come "in addition to". But, just "in place of" something.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Post Reply