Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[seaspear]

The reason I suggested 18 months was more aimed at the funding side than the ability of industry to build them faster. With the T-31e 12 months should be both doable and affordable.

Regarding ASW, the Oliver Hazard Parry class did not have a TASS, only a hull mounted sonar and relied on a helo without a dipping sonar for ASW. Yes the SH-60 used sonar buoys instead but the combination worked. With the RN and T-31e it will probably be the opposite eventually, with the Ship having a TASS and the Helo delivering the ordonnance. However datalinks etc. could sea the helo prosecuting contacts form a third party. Fitting the TT from the decommissioned T-23 would give the T-31e another option.

Given the T-31e would have warfighting as a secondary capability to all intents and purposes, any helo embarked is going to have to fulfil a multitude of roles, for which in the RNs case the Wildcat is a far better option. If, as I hope the classis developed over time the Merlin would become more relevant which is why having a design able to hanger and operate a helo of that size from the outset should be a no brainer.

The reason I suggested 18 months was more aimed at the funding side than the ability of industry to build them faster. With the T-31e 12 months should be both doable and affordable.

Hull mounted sonar may have worked back then but now? What provision and space is there for the type 31,s sonar in its design,growth and need ,has the navy at any point stated that the rotary element that may in future be added ,after all the main focus of the ship has been building it to a low price

[Caribbean]

Hull mounted sonar may have worked back then but now? What provision and space is there for the type 31,s sonar in its design,growth and need

Hull mounted sonar is still useful for shallow-water ASW, mine and torpedo detection, and for detection of surface vessels (particularly small, fast and noisy ones) in littoral waters. The T31e RFI says FTR (fit-to-receive) a hull-mounted sonar (I would guess that the specific type would be dependent on what the customer selects), with an "evolution path" for "entry-level ASW" designed in. Not sure exactly what is meant by that, but I would guess something like one of the compact linear arrays, or possibly Captas-1 or -2 (I would have thought the Captas-4 or -4CI would count as something more than "entry-level"), plus some form of ASW weaponry.

has the navy at any point stated that the rotary element that may in future be added

Didn't the 1SL say recently that the RN was planning to field a rotary UAV in the next few years?
The RFI says
"Handle, secure, store (hangar), maintain, refuel, defuel Wildcat HMA2 + Rotary Wing UAV or 10 ton Helo (e.g. NH90). Arm/disarm organic helo with FASGW(H), FASGW(L), Stingray, Depth Charges, GPMG/50 Cal "

[ArmChairCivvy]

Personally I think that is too slow, actually do need more Naval ships the numbers are too low. I would also be considering how to encourage speedier builds,

You will need to consider arriving at the right mix (for the tasks defined) not just at the end (when the first vessels will need MLUing) but along the way, too:
- the drumbeat has been fixed in a relative way (because this translates to money, not just in aggregate but per year as well) and that will be 2 to 1 (easy to guess which one is for the cheaper )

[ArmChairCivvy]

an "evolution path" for "entry-level ASW" designed in. Not sure exactly what is meant by that, but I would guess something like one of the compact linear arrays, or possibly Captas-1 or -2 (I would have thought the Captas-4 or -4CI would count as something more than "entry-level"), plus some form of ASW weaponry.

seaspear wrote:
has the navy at any point stated that the rotary element that may in future be added

Intrigued by what systems lead in that "rotary element" category?

More generally speaking, we forget that even though the RN buys from Thales (as they practically funded the CAPTAS4) there are other good products available (if not for the RN, at least for the export customers to choose from). For the weight of a tank turret, for
" ships of various
sizes, readily cross-deckable
• Extended detection range
capability in excess of 30 miles
• Short tow scope ideal for shallow
water operations
• Transmits omni and by quadrant,
so you can put the energy where
you want it
• Lightweight and small size ideal
for use on small platforms
• Twin receive arrays allow instant
resolution of target bearing
ambiguity
• Bi- and multistatically compatible
with helicopter
dipping sonar, sonobuoys..."... hunting subs is all about team work, in this case between the frigate and its own (or other) helo(s)

[Jake1992]

Agree with Gabi , a large hello deck and hanger is never a waste . Tag on a large mission bay underneath and that's the ideal stern for me . Build the rest similar to the venator 110 (120) that's the type31e for me . As a wannabe I would love a second Camm silo aft of the funnel, I am living in the hope of spear 3 becoming seaspear 3 someday.

So really something like a hybrid between the Venator 110 design and the Spartan design, the stern mission bay and ramp plus the hanger flight deck and rear silos of the Spartan and the rest from the Venator 110?

Sound like a perfect flexible light frigate to me, but very much doubt we'd get something like that though.

What was interesting when watching Xav's interview with BMT was that they surgested the possibility of a hybrid between the Venator 110 and Arroehead 120 as a one of 3 options put forward along with the Venor 110 and Arrowhead 120 as they are.

BMT & Babcocks have since announced that they've agreed to partner for the bid. Babcocks will lead.

It'd be very interesting to see what a hybrid between the Venator 110 and Arrowhead 120 comes out like and if they believe it can be done for the set price

[donald_of_tokyo]

But a fraction of the cost of not having the right equipment in times of war. In security, freedom, financial and lives.
...
Not really, what maritime security does a OPV or T31 provide? We give our soldiers rifles but the moment the opposing force arrives with tanks they too will be asking what security a rifle provides

Army will not deploy Armored Brigade permanently to Falkland Islands, in fear of Chili and Brazil suddenly decided to attack the islands with LPDs filled with their MBTs in support of Argentina. In place, a light infantry will be located. RN will not permanently deploy CVTF to Gibraltar, in fear of Spain suddenly decided to invade it. This is normal military operation.

A T31e can do APT-S. Even a T21 was doing APT-S, even in the era Argentina air-force was much more capable than now. Many OPVs are/were fighting against pirates on Solami. These examples are one aspects of "maritime security". No problem.

Good point of T31e is that its requirement is consistent with the cost

Don't agree, what is the requirement? Who did the risk analysis? If you had said the specification was consistent with the cost, I might agree. The specification is vague because the requirement is vague. The Government thinks by providing a budget and an open design competition they will be presented with a design and they can pick the best design and specification. That is fine but I haven't seen or heard but about the risks the Royal Navy faces and the Requirements of the fleet to mitigate the risks and those of that the Navy is there to protect against.
As already said the Government is not doing its job properly.......

I have no big objection to your comment. And the good thing of T31e is "the specification is consistent with the cost", which was NOT in case of T26/45, which caused all the disaster we see now. (So, "specification vs cost" issue is done here, I hope.)

On the other hand, I do think the requirement is somewhat clear = Floreal-like. Clearly HMG/MOD cannot require the ship to do peer-to-peer fight. It is not even mentioned in the RFI = NOT REQUIRED, while it also says, CV, T26 and T45 will do fight.

[NickC]

The Type 31e design concepts are taken from Sir Peter Parker's report including

" Design for shorter life of 15 years - avoid costly refit - prepare to sell for export (earlier if necessary to support particular export sales) "

Parker's thinking to bring about a renaissance in shipbuilding that to avoid expensive mid-life refits MOD/RN would fund new ships on a rolling 15 year cycle, giving industry guaranteed order book in order to invest and bring costs down and have competitive prices for exports.

This golden scenario would pre-suppose that politicians/government think long term, no hint of 15 year cycle in the RFI. UK Government is based on short termism, sometimes policy made on the hoof based todays headlines or next weeks financial crisis. So unfortunately think Parker's thinking is a totally unrealistic pipe dream and will crash and burn, hope proven wrong.

[shark bait]

BMT & Babcocks have since announced that they've agreed to partner for the bid. Babcocks will lead.

That's settled then, Babcock are building the T31.

[shark bait]

The T31e RFI says FTR (fit-to-receive) a hull-mounted sonar (I would guess that the specific type would be dependent on what the customer selects), with an "evolution path" for "entry-level ASW" designed in.

They should all be built with the hull sonars transferred from the T23's, and the three new variable depth sonars should be sent back to Thales and configured with the new compact handling system for the T31's.

If that happens, they might be able to make a success out of this folly.

Idea itself is good, but its operation cost will be twice or more higher than deploying a T31e. Also, even a few RPG in ambush or a single ASM can kill the Bay with 5 Apache onboard. So this idea needs to be either "located when there is no at-sea threat exists", or "deploy with T26/T45 accompanied". Different type of assets, they are.

The US have no issue sending a converted tanker of such an operation. The concept is to keep the platform out of harms way, and send the off-board systems out to do the hard work.

[abc123]

Just 15 years of life?

Is somebody really expecting tht the HMG will fork out 2 billions of GBP every 15 years on Type 31-class ships? How can that be cheaper than average 50-100 mil. GBP for refit per ship?

[donald_of_tokyo]

The Type 31e design concepts are taken from Sir Peter Parker's report including

" Design for shorter life of 15 years - avoid costly refit - prepare to sell for export (earlier if necessary to support particular export sales) "

Parker's thinking to bring about a renaissance in shipbuilding that to avoid expensive mid-life refits MOD/RN would fund new ships on a rolling 15 year cycle, giving industry guaranteed order book in order to invest and bring costs down and have competitive prices for exports.

Wasn't this already tried on T23 and then on HMS Ocean? Anyway, I agree it may not come true, as you say.

Idea itself is good, but its operation cost will be twice or more higher than deploying a T31e. Also, even a few RPG in ambush or a single ASM can kill the Bay with 5 Apache onboard. So this idea needs to be either "located when there is no at-sea threat exists", or "deploy with T26/T45 accompanied". Different type of assets, they are.

The US have no issue sending a converted tanker of such an operation. The concept is to keep the platform out of harms way, and send the off-board systems out to do the hard work.

I agree no problem here, that's why I never said this idea is bad. What I said is, they differ. In many case in anti-terrorits war, "staying out of harms way" is not always (= in all scenario) guaranteed. Therefore, I do not think USN will stop sending USCG cutters, nor totally disband cyclone-class, nor totally through-away LCS, even if they have the new platforms.

[donald_of_tokyo]

T31e as an up-armored Floreal-class (judged from its 4000t size and 250M GBP ave cost) is "not useless" and "has its own rationale". This is what I am continuing to say. But, as you can see, I never said it is the best solution. It is the strongest option simply because HMG/RN is going for it. But there are other options, as well.

-------
<Option-A: 15 escort + 3 River B3 solution>
A1- With 1.25B GBP, build one more T26 (750-800 M) and 3 extended River B2 with hangar ="B3" (400-500M)
A2- disband 2 T23 GP (HMS Monmouth and Montrose) immediately to save their modernization cost.
A3- retain 3 River B1 to be used as "MHC test-ship", bring back HMS Brecon to make Hunt class made of 9 hulls, and disband all Sandowns. River B1 as FIGS, untill 5th hull of River B2 comes (in 2019).
A4- and re-use money acquired from A3, to start MHC as Venari 85 to replace River B1/1.5s in 2023-26.

# Here River B3 may use Khareef as a base hull (~10m extended, 1m wider) with a Wildcat hangar, a 57 mm gun and a CIWS, in addition to 2x DS30+LMM (2700t FLD). Specifically use for APT-S and part of FRE. Venari 85 shall be armed with 57mm gun, to "defend" the MCM drones.

In late 2026, RN will have "6 T45 AAW destroyer, 2 T26 ASW Frigate, 8 T23 ASW Frigates (to be replaced with 7 T26), 3 River B3 Corvette, 5 River B2 OPV, 9 Hunt-class MCMV and 3 MHC."


<Option-B: 14 escort, 5 Surveilance Corvette solution>
B1- Go on with 5 T31e.
B2- replace 4 River B1/1.5 with 5 River B2.
B3- gradually replace Sandown and Hunts with MHCs.

In late 2026, RN will have "6 T45 AAW destroyer, 2+6 T26 ASW Frigate, 8 T23 ASW Frigate, 3+2 T31e Surveilance Corvette, 5 River B2 OPV, 8 Hunt-class and 5 Sandown MCMVs".


<Option-C: 14 escort, 6 P-8A (?) solution>
C1- just disband 5 T23 GP (better do it NOW to save cost)
C2- use the 1.25B GBP for 6 P-8A (or something else)
C2'- Some thing as 5 Bay-likes?

----------
But, politically, what scenario will be needed to stop T31e? May be we can say, "HMS Scott is more important than T31e, so to make Scot alive, reset the T31e program"?.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Was checking NavyNews.

- In 2017, APT-S in only covered by HMS Portland till March. From then on, it is gapped. It was also gapped in late 2016.
- At least from Jan 2017, Kipion has only 1 escort. (with HMS Ocean in Spring)
- On the other hand, we see some in Med/Black Sea and Norway.
I guess, APT-S and Kipion's "importance" is declining. If it is important, escorts sent to North and Med should have been sent to APT-S and Kipion. Also I guess escorts' availability is getting low, because officially (at least) APT-S is always stated as UK-RN standing tasks but still gapped.

By the way, if APT-S become a "4 months a year routine deployment" (not 12 months standing task), escort number can be reduced by 2-3 (assuming 3-4 vs 1 deployment ratio). And I guess it is actually reduced (as T45s in port and 3-4 T23 in refit). Of course, all of this is presumably driven by "man power shortage".

[Repulse]

The T31e cannot be stopped, but it needs to ensure the RN can keep it's commitments. As Donald-san pointed out, there are now additional Med / North Atlantic commitments where a T26 is needed, but perhaps not full time. An additional T26 and 5 pimped B2+ Rivers is the best course now. By B2+ I mean a B2 River with hangar (no crane) and a 57mm gun.

[MRCA]

Or Option D the uk gives up standing task deployments with frigates to instead focus on deploying a carrier strike group instead.

[Ron5]

Or Option D the uk gives up standing task deployments with frigates to instead focus on deploying a carrier strike group instead.

I'd vote for this if the RAF would guarantee at least two squadrons (ideally 3) available at all times for the carriers.

[MRCA]

As the NAO already stated that is what the RN signed up to when it ordered the carriers.

As for FJ Sqns there will only be 2 sqns and only that by about 2025 if we're lucky so they'll definitely not be available all the time.

[james k]

I'm sure the RAF would guarantee that but rather like those of Mr Hitler "experience shows that [their] guarantees guarantee nothing"

Or Option D the uk gives up standing task deployments with frigates to instead focus on deploying a carrier strike group instead.

I'd vote for this if the RAF would guarantee at least two squadrons (ideally 3) available at all times for the carriers.

[Defiance]

I'm getting deja vu

[seaspear]

Changing the subject to what future escorts may carry , a fifty kilowatt laser prototype called Dragonfire is mooted as being ready by 2019 a supersonic missile might only be able to be sighted and engaged by such for ten seconds and possibly less if weather effects, possibly the sensors of such guided missile may be effected leaving it an unguided missile any thoughts ?

[S M H]

I'm getting deja vu

the pre war problems of funding or lack of it and the political masters not wakening up to the problem till it is to late is exactly what we have. The present armed forces hollowed out with treasury driven cuts driven by political inability to provide fund to match the true requirements As in the 1920 to mid 1930s Forcing the prioritizing of one requirement over the other. Leaving others to wither away. The answer is not play the treasury ploy of setting one service verses the other. But force the political defence blind members of parliament to have a open debate over what tasks the M.O.D. should commit to then provide funds to match. Not so mythical two percent distorted by adding none defence departments or the Strategic deterrent into the defence budget. May be then we will get the required surface combatants and the required airframes in operational squadrons in numbers required. Pre war the navy prioritised capital ships as escorts could be built quickly. However now we must use what we have a quick expansion option. With no reserve ships. due to the requirement to sell decommissioned ships to plug funding gaps caused by so called treasury efficiency requirements We cannot supplement existing warships in emergency. The best we can hope for is that the proposed type 31 is fitted for but not equipped to a standard that allows quick installation of weapons urgently purchased or begged or borrowed of others stocks, Preserving decommissioned ships while type in service could provide more service combatants to cover ships in refit in an emergency but this all costs. Then our silence on the policy of managed defence decline in options for change needs to be revisited.

[Defiance]

I'm getting deja vu

the pre war problems of funding or lack of it and the political masters not wakening up to the problem till it is to late is exactly what we have. The present armed forces hollowed out with treasury driven cuts driven by political inability to provide fund to match the true requirements As in the 1920 to mid 1930s Forcing the prioritizing of one requirement over the other. Leaving others to wither away. The answer is not play the treasury ploy of setting one service verses the other. But force the political defence blind members of parliament to have a open debate over what tasks the M.O.D. should commit to then provide funds to match. Not so mythical two percent distorted by adding none defence departments or the Strategic deterrent into the defence budget. May be then we will get the required surface combatants and the required airframes in operational squadrons in numbers required. Pre war the navy prioritised capital ships as escorts could be built quickly. However now we must use what we have a quick expansion option. With no reserve ships. due to the requirement to sell decommissioned ships to plug funding gaps caused by so called treasury efficiency requirements We cannot supplement existing warships in emergency. The best we can hope for is that the proposed type 31 is fitted for but not equipped to a standard that allows quick installation of weapons urgently purchased or begged or borrowed of others stocks, Preserving decommissioned ships while type in service could provide more service combatants to cover ships in refit in an emergency but this all costs. Then our silence on the policy of managed defence decline in options for change needs to be revisited.

Nah just reading yet another post from james k sh*tting on the RAF, it's getting a bit boring is all.

[Lord Jim]

If we really want public services properly funded , the Politicians need to be taken out of parts of the procurement loop. This would mean that they retain responsibility for policy and when and if to commit our Armed Forces, but the level of funding is decided by an independent body. So the Politicians say they want to deploy a fully equipped Carrier Group with a full air wing, escorts and support vessels as their goal. The Funding group goes away and comes back and says if you want to do that it will cost the £XBn. The Politicians turn around and say we cannot afford that as the Health department needs extra funding. The Politicians then have to reduce their aspirations until the funding group reports back with a figure that fits the available budget. All of the above must be transparent and would ensure that the defence aspirations that are on the public record are actually fully funded including contingency funds. Unless the Politicians publically change their aspirations for the country's defence these figures are locked in. If they change then the funding body will adjust the spending to keep within the new budget. The above would stop Politicians sprouting aspirations without having the funding in place to meet them. The funding would be for the life of the programme so no stop start development, production and maintenance cycle. In effect this funding group would replace many of the functions of the Treasury, with the various Government departments focusing on actual policy they can deliver rather then political spin.

[Ron5]

Changing the subject to what future escorts may carry , a fifty kilowatt laser prototype called Dragonfire is mooted as being ready by 2019 a supersonic missile might only be able to be sighted and engaged by such for ten seconds and possibly less if weather effects, possibly the sensors of such guided missile may be effected leaving it an unguided missile any thoughts ?

Probably a lot less power than that. Maybe 30 MW. It's just a demonstrator program for now. It's a bit puzzling why the UK is spending scarce defence money on demonstrating something that other countries have already down.

The nerd at DSEI said the UK has some unique technology connected to the way a bunch of small laser beams are combined into one. As a side benefit the main beam can therefore be modulated in power by adjusting the number of small beams that are contributing. But that's not the reason for doing it. Single large lasers are troublesome in many ways.

Combining beams is not unique and has been proven already in at least the US. I think that the US demo did not sync the small beams so the result was an incoherent main beam. Maybe the UK has figured out how to do that sync.

I also think I'm correct in saying one of the bigger issues with laser weaponry is how to get rid of the heat left in the projector. 100 MW is generally accepted as the military minimum and lots of those MW gets left behind as heat. How to get rid of it is difficult.

[Defiance]

I also think I'm correct in saying one of the bigger issues with laser weaponry is how to get rid of the heat left in the projector. 100 MW is generally accepted as the military minimum and lots of those MW gets left behind as heat. How to get rid of it is difficult.

100MW? Are you sure you don't mean 100kW? AFAIK MW class (single digits) solutions are seen to be an ideal soltion in the future, but when you talk about realistic all round capability which is achievable by the end of the decade it's usually been 100kW