Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Jake1992]

So wgat are the odds we'll see massive cuts now ?
Loss of the Albions ? Cut the T31s or T26s ? Even greater slow down in the F35s ? Loss of the wildcats ? More than 1000 RM cut ?

[donald_of_tokyo]

... I am not saying the proposed Venari has the same capabilities as the expected T31 but that it can do the same low end jobs at a cheaper unit cost.

I think this is important point. So, other than 10m longer hull and vacant space left for "FFBNW CAMM, ASM, Sonar, and TASS", on what do you think a T31e will have more capability?

As you know, my cost estimate is a bit more pessimistic (I myself think realistic ), but if Venari 100 can be a £150M ship (or £200M in my case), T31 is costing another £100M (or £50M) on what? In my case, among the "£50M", I think "£20M" is going to the larger hull, to provide all FFBNW space. The other "£30M" shall be spent on CMS uplift (To make CAMM FFBNW).

In your case, it is £100M. Maybe use £20M for the hull, and "£30M" for CMS uplift. But we have another £50M. This is why I say "if Venari 100 can be built with £150M, T31 will surely be able to carry CAMM."

If T31e is NOT getting CAMM, it means either: Venari 100 cannot be built in £150M, or T31e has high hull standard (which is costy for sure). The former is my "pessimistic/realistic" estimate, and the latter is someones's favorite. (Sorry I forgot...)

The problem I see with the T31 as is, is that it's pretending to be a C2 ( second tier escort ) when really it falls between the C2 and C3 it's too much for one not enough for the other.

I totally agree. C2 was escort, T31e is NOT, for sure. But, I think MHC must be much more lower than T31e.

As I stated, Venari 85 (not 100) has no chance to be cheaper than River B2 (£90M). Much larger hull, higher hull specification, higher fighting capability with 57mm gun and higher level CMS than those of River B2, large mission bays and deck. I am not surprised even if it is 40-50% higher (£120-140M).

Venari 85 as it is, is bulky (~3000t hull I think), and if with 57mm gun, it is already a Floreal equivalent. In place of helo hangar of Floreal, Venari 85 has MCMV drone hangar. Lack of ASM is a good candidate to make Venari 85 cheaper than Floreal. But, hull standard is not that easy. 100m gun vs 57mm (with 3P munition ASM-defense capable) gun is at least similar (and I actually prefer 57mm). Also the hull size and speed is similar. On range and endurance, Floreal are a lot better, so also from here some cheapness may come in, but maybe not that much.

Adding a hangar and CIWS, and enlarging the "so-so-high standard" hull to make it Venari 100, will all make it more expensive, surely more than Floreal (£150-200M), and reaching near T31e (£250M).

RN
C1 - T26 T45
C2 - T31 ( ment to be )
C3 - MHC program ( Venair 85 )
OPV - RB2

In the old days, C2 was a so-so large escort. C3 carries 57mm gun, CAMM, and MCM mission bay. You can see this is exactly the current T31e is. And, they say it cost £250M ave. This is my standpoint. To save the RN, MHC must be kept more simple, I think.

[Pongoglo]

[/quote] In the old days, C2 was a so-so large escort. C3 carries 57mm gun, CAMM, and MCM mission bay. You can see this is exactly the current T31e is. And, they say it cost £250M ave. This is my standpoint. To save the RN, MHC must be kept more simple, I think.[/quote]

Must say I really have to laugh at the total negativity directed toward T31 on this forum, plus some classic misconception too. T31 and the NSBS is as much about politics than the actual needs of the RN and there is absolutely no chance of T31 being cancelled in favour of two more T26 plus a handful of stretched 'B3' Rivers or anything else. If it were cancelled the fall out would be massive and the government a laughing stock - end of. Perhaps it is because the conversation on here tends to be dominated by non UK tax payers without a first hand understanding of how things actually work on the UK political scene let alone inside the Treasury or the MOD?

Also where does all this stuff come from about a 57 mm gun, CIWS and the absense of CAAM? People clearly haven't read the RFI which states 'Medium calibre gun >57mm' ie a calibre of 57mm or greater, and even this is an amendment obviously to allow the inclusion of the Bofors/BAE 57mm as an option because the original spec quiet clearly stated >76mm.

IMHO there is very little chance of the RN adding yet another calibre to the supply chain so it will either be the venerable but highly regarded 4.5 inch Mk 8, ported across from the T23 or guns off the now demised Batch 3 T22's and later batch stretched 42's all of which had the MK 8 MOD 1 fitted before they were retired. This is quiet clearly what is depuicted on the BAE Systems Leander design and before that on their earlier and rather crude Cutlass image. If not the MK 8 then perhaps preferably the MK 45 127 mm' which will ensure commonality with the T26.

As for CAAM the RFI very clearly states 'Use Anti Air Missiles'. For the RN to introduce any other missile system when it has fully functioning CAAM systems and sensors ready to be ported over from the T23's and with which the T26 will also be equipped would be a logistic nightmare, folly indeed and quiet simply isn't going to happen. Every serving RN officer who has been asked the question has categorically stated it will be equipped with CAAM.

My point being? Just because a warship doesn't happen to carry a towed sonar doesn't mean it isn't a Frigate and a 4,000 tonne vessel sporting a medium sized helicopter and hanger, Artisan, CAAM and a Five inch gun clearly isnt an OPV !

At DSEI I asked the question on the BMT stand and as it happened it was the same guy interviewed by Zav. His answer when asked if they could deliver Venator as T31 for £250 Million a go was that they had known for some time that this would be the price and would not have entered the race if it couldn't be achieved. He then pointed at the image below and said that is what we will be offering to the RN, which is why I took the pic.

[Ron5]

At least Pinocchio Fallon is now gone to go sleep on the backbenches for a while before his lordship arrives in the mail.

What’s really worrying is how much Defence correspondents like Beale and Bunkell are saying how invested Fallon was in the role of SecDef and of how much he fought the armed forces corner “privately” describing him as a very vocal supporter of defence in Cabinet... I’d hate to see what damage a non committed SecDef could do!

If Fallon had only had the good sense to put his hand on Theresa's knee ..... sigh

[Ron5]

"no chance of being cancelled"

Best laugh so far today.

[marktigger]

there is absolutely no chance of T31 being cancelled in favour of two more T26 plus a handful of stretched 'B3' Rivers or anything else.

I do hate it when people say things like that (usually just before its cancelled).

Given all that could happen between now and the first one getting wet I'm going to remain sceptical and only celebrate when its handed over.

I do agree with the bulk of what you say about systems and would suggest that the options for different weapons fits will be kept to promote its export potential.

[MRCA]

The treasure should not dictate indervidual project budgets not any spec, they need to be cut down so they are there to collect tax and give each department its yearly budget ( in the case of MOD a 10 yearly budget as its needed )
Once done it should be down to each department how it's spent with not out side interference.

Fully agreed.

You are aware this is how it currently works? They arent removing money from the currently budget. The current issue is the Mod has spectacularly failed to live within the budget agreed at the last sdsr because they were like kids in a sweet shop stuffing any and all programs into a budget they knew could not support them/ based there cals on wishful thinking and special pleading. And then got caught with exchange rate issues on top!

I recognize this line of spin, I've read similar stuff in several places. All noticeable for a) not listing the "overspends" and b) not listing the offending services. I assume it all emanates from the Ministry of Truth.

Ships are tied up in port, international exercises are not attended, kit is quietly taken out of service with no replacements, capabilities are gapped, and servicemen/women numbers are in steep decline. All as the result of CUTS.

George Osborne came into office to cut government spending so that he could "balance" the budget but he was told hands off Health, Education, Foreign Aid & Pensions/Social Security payments. The only place he could make major cuts was defence.

His problem was the significant numbers of his own MP's that were steadfastly against any cuts.

So he lied. And he got Defence Ministers to go along with his lies.

He said the Defence budget would not be cut and would be kept at 2%. His MP's cheered him to the rafters. Idiots.

Firstly, behind the scenes he transferred a bunch of non-defence items into the budget. As they increase in cost year to year, defence spending must be cut. Later the defence parliamentary committee described this behavior as "smoke & mirrors".

Secondly, he transferred the cost of the deterrent into the budget without adding any money. Therefore requiring defence cuts in conventional forces.

Thirdly, he approved the infamous 180 billion equipment plan on the condition that approx one third of it would be money gained by cutting existing capabilities i.e. you can have F-35 jets but only if you cut the Royal Marines first. There would be a delay. You cut a million this year and I'll let you spend it some years down the road. That's a CUT.

None of this was helped by the Treasury supplying totally bogus numbers for inflation. They told the MoD to budget F-35 buys at $1.50 to the pound when in realty they'll be lucky to get $1.30.

Add together the cuts to pay for non-defence budget items, the deterrent, the capability cuts to fund new equipment, and the foriegn exchange screw ups and the result is a 20+ billion black hole in the MoD budget.

Bugger all to do with defence chiefs spending money in a toy shop. What toys? I don't see any.

Everything to do with a dishonest Chancellor enabled by stupid backbenchers, boot licking Ministers, and a Prime Minister & general public more than happy to look the other way.

Ah yes it’s everyone else’s fault line straight out of the Donald trump political play book. The sdsr 2010 laid bare exactly what the uk budget can or could buy not what capabilities crossing your fingers and hoping you can retire before it turns to a busted flush approach that has been the hallmark of uk defence planning and budget control for a last 2 decades. The mod wants to play like the worlds policeman’s best mate with a budget that does not match.

What toys we’ll i would suggest you start by looking at what was ordered during sdsr 2015 all of it. All those decisions to remove capabilities that were reversed or changed based on wishful thinking and questionable budget planning. It’s not even hindsight the NAO audit rang warning bells With this

The NAOs comment on sdsr 2015

"The affordability of the Equipment Plan is at greater risk than at any time since its inception. It is worrying to see that the costs of the new commitments arising from the Review considerably exceed the net increase in funding for the Plan. The difference is to be found partly by demanding efficiency targets.There is little room for unplanned cost growth and the MoD must actively guard against the risk of a return to previous practice where affordability could only be maintained by delaying or reducing the scope of projects.”

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 27 January 2017


https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-equip ... 2016-2026/
but they were dismissed as nothing to see here were now budget responsible by the MOD. Guess what the NAO were right a leopard doesn’t change its spots it reverted to type.

[dmereifield]

In the old days, C2 was a so-so large escort. C3 carries 57mm gun, CAMM, and MCM mission bay. You can see this is exactly the current T31e is. And, they say it cost £250M ave. This is my standpoint. To save the RN, MHC must be kept more simple, I think.[/quote]

Must say I really have to laugh at the total negativity directed toward T31 on this forum, plus some classic misconception too. T31 and the NSBS is as much about politics than the actual needs of the RN and there is absolutely no chance of T31 being cancelled in favour of two more T26 plus a handful of stretched 'B3' Rivers or anything else. If it were cancelled the fall out would be massive and the government a laughing stock - end of. Perhaps it is because the conversation on here tends to be dominated by non UK tax payers without a first hand understanding of how things actually work on the UK political scene let alone inside the Treasury or the MOD?

Also where does all this stuff come from about a 57 mm gun, CIWS and the absense of CAAM? People clearly haven't read the RFI which states 'Medium calibre gun >57mm' ie a calibre of 57mm or greater, and even this is an amendment obviously to allow the inclusion of the Bofors/BAE 57mm as an option because the original spec quiet clearly stated >76mm.

IMHO there is very little chance of the RN adding yet another calibre to the supply chain so it will either be the venerable but highly regarded 4.5 inch Mk 8, ported across from the T23 or guns off the now demised Batch 3 T22's and later batch stretched 42's all of which had the MK 8 MOD 1 fitted before they were retired. This is quiet clearly what is depuicted on the BAE Systems Leander design and before that on their earlier and rather crude Cutlass image. If not the MK 8 then perhaps preferably the MK 45 127 mm' which will ensure commonality with the T26.

As for CAAM the RFI very clearly states 'Use Anti Air Missiles'. For the RN to introduce any other missile system when it has fully functioning CAAM systems and sensors ready to be ported over from the T23's and with which the T26 will also be equipped would be a logistic nightmare, folly indeed and quiet simply isn't going to happen. Every serving RN officer who has been asked the question has categorically stated it will be equipped with CAAM.

My point being? Just because a warship doesn't happen to carry a towed sonar doesn't mean it isn't a Frigate and a 4,000 tonne vessel sporting a medium sized helicopter and hanger, Artisan, CAAM and a Five inch gun clearly isnt an OPV !

At DSEI I asked the question on the BMT stand and as it happened it was the same guy interviewed by Zav. His answer when asked if they could deliver Venator as T31 for £250 Million a go was that they had known for some time that this would be the price and would not have entered the race if it couldn't be achieved. He then pointed at the image below and said that is what we will be offering to the RN, which is why I took the pic.[/quote]

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Do you think it will have a hull mounted sonar? Mice photo too - pleased that they think they can also include ASM within the price cap

[R686]

@ dmereifield, is there any chance you can clean up your above post as its hard to follow as your responding to a previous post which is all jumbled in without quote the previous exchange.

Cheers

[marktigger]

if its merlin capable does it need a hull sonar

[benny14]

there is absolutely no chance of T31 being cancelled in favour of two more T26 plus a handful of stretched 'B3' Rivers or anything else

I have to agree. The shipbuilding strategy and the type 31 been exportable have far too much political will invested. Going back on it would be political suicide.

Also where does all this stuff come from about a 57 mm gun, CIWS and the absense of CAAM? People clearly haven't read the RFI which states 'Medium calibre gun >57mm' ie a calibre of 57mm or greater, and even this is an amendment obviously to allow the inclusion of the Bofors/BAE 57mm as an option because the original spec quiet clearly stated >76mm. As for CAAM the RFI very clearly states 'Use Anti Air Missiles

The RFI states as a core requirement PDMS + sensors or CIWS + fit to receive PDMS. This is why people are questioning it, it states there is the possibility of the ship been fitted with a CIWS and capable of but not fitted with CAMM, which given the Royal Navy track record on this is not a good sign if it was chosen, and would be no guarantee that ti would be fitted anytime soon. No one doubts it would be CAMM or that the fitted gun would not be a 4.5 or 5inch as fitted on current and future vessels.

At DSEI I asked the question on the BMT stand and as it happened it was the same guy interviewed by Zav. His answer when asked if they could deliver Venator as T31 for £250 Million a go was that they had known for some time that this would be the price and would not have entered the race if it couldn't be achieved. He then pointed at the image below and said that is what we will be offering to the RN, which is why I took the pic.

I heard someone say that before, that the industry was aware of the £250m price point before it was announced. This gives me a bit of optimism that the current designs shown off will be as they are and not down graded to fit the cost.

if its merlin capable does it need a hull sonar

I would say yes, to give it passive sonar for protection and safe navigation, and a Merlin is not flying 24/7.

The core requirement for the vessel is for a Wildcat sized hanger, there is no guarantee that a Merlin capable version will be chosen since that size is in the adaptable requirements. Also the vessel been capable of been fitted with a hull mounted sonar is a core requirement.

[andrew98]

if its merlin capable does it need a hull sonar

Of course it bloody does, over an extended length of how long can a merlin be in the air?
1/4 of the time?
1/3 of the time?
What about bad weather or maintenance issues?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Must say I really have to laugh at the total negativity directed toward T31 on this forum, plus some classic misconception too.

Saying "its cost is similar to Floreal" is not "negative", it is just a fact, and I do think Floreal is a nice ship (as I stated frequently). It's level is distinct (2-3 times more) from OPVs, but also distinct from (only 40% of) FTI light frigate, and a fraction (25%) of T26. I propose not to call it a frigate, because if you do so, HMG will happily cut T26 from 8 to 6, and T31e from 5 to 7. This will give you 1B GBP back.

...there is absolutely no chance of T31 being cancelled in favour of two more T26 plus a handful of stretched 'B3' Rivers or anything else. If it were cancelled the fall out would be massive and the government a laughing stock - end of.

Thanks. Yes, I am unfamiliar with UK politics. So, I would like to know how it differs from canceled project, such as, ... Nimrod MR4? On the other hand, "my favorite option" (1 T26 and some OPV) is not the "default" (T31e), so T31e shall be the primary issue to be discussed. I totally agree.

Also where does all this stuff come from about a 57 mm gun, CIWS and the absense of CAAM?

Simply because I read through the RFI. But, you said different thing. At where 76mm is mentioned?

On CAMM, I agree it is written differently: gun+CIWS or gun+CAMM. It is not "FTR", nor "adaptable". So I think it is by default there, but if the cost is difficult, can be cut (my interpretation). Actually, "RFI_Cost_Return" excel file states many interesting issues. I think all members here shall take a read, at least the "instruction sheet". Very informative. For example, it states "T31e User Requirement Flyer included within the RFI" as the requirement list. And they say, "Core: Point Defence Missile System (PDMS) + Sensors or Close in Weapon System + Fit to Receive PDMS to survive attacks as expected in constabulary operations." in the Flyer.

On the other hand, RFI is asking for cost estimation ("New to Service Equipment" sheet). And I agree your argument on support cost is right. Then, the conclusion would be "4.5 inch or 5 inch is the cheapest option", regardless of limited AAW capability and increase maintenance onboard (it is a huge mechatronics).

My point being? Just because a warship doesn't happen to carry a towed sonar doesn't mean it isn't a Frigate and a 4,000 tonne vessel sporting a medium sized helicopter and hanger, Artisan, CAAM and a Five inch gun clearly isnt an OPV !

Agreed. Actually, French navy calls Floreal a "Surveillance Frigate". But, they do not count her as high-end escort. Very correct. I think this shall be followed in RN. If not, HMG will happily cut T26 to be replaced with T31e, I'm afraid.

PS Also note, this is RFI, not RFP. Ingredients in RFP will change from those in RFI, for sure.

[benny14]

Agreed. Actually, French navy calls Floreal a "Surveillance Frigate". But, they do not count her as high-end escort

The Floreal is a low end frigate and performs the same duties as a OPV. 5/6 of their vessels are permanently based in their overseas territories and are used as OPV vessels, carrying out "Exclusive Economic Zone" activities. Basically like our River-class based in the Falklands.

[marktigger]

if its merlin capable does it need a hull sonar

Of course it bloody does, over an extended length of how long can a merlin be in the air?
1/4 of the time?
1/3 of the time?
What about bad weather or maintenance issues?

with a group of frigates and RFA's you have more than 1 merlin
Merlin gives allot more options than wildcat capable hanger. If you can merge the mission bay and hanger you could have a merlin capable hanger or mission bay and wildcat capable hanger.

[marktigger]

I would suggest there will be no major weapons systems or sensor systems put on the T31E (UK) that aren't already on or scheduled to be on T23, T26 or T45. And probably allot of others as well. The systems architecture and the vessel will be designed in such a way they could be fitted for foreign sales. But if its not in the inventory now or in near future it is't going to be.

[benny14]

with a group of frigates and RFA's you have more than 1 merlin

The type 31 is expected to be able to operate independently if needed. Therfore it needs to be able to deal with situations where it is on its own. As well, we don't have enough ships to have multiple frigates together all the time.

I would suggest there will be no major weapons systems or sensor systems put on the T31E (UK) that aren't already on or scheduled to be on T23, T26 or T45. And probably allot of others as well. The systems architecture and the vessel will be designed in such a way they could be fitted for foreign sales. But if its not in the inventory now or in near future it is't going to be.

Pretty obvious. The type 31 will be fitted with gear that is already in use as far as weapon systems and sensors go. It will just have the absolute bare minimum to fit it within the price limit.

[marktigger]

I would suggest there will be no major weapons systems or sensor systems put on the T31E (UK) that aren't already on or scheduled to be on T23, T26 or T45. And probably allot of others as well. The systems architecture and the vessel will be designed in such a way they could be fitted for foreign sales. But if its not in the inventory now or in near future it is't going to be.

Pretty obvious. The type 31 will be fitted with gear that is already in use as far as weapon systems and sensors go. It will just have the absolute bare minimum to fit it within the price limit.

Yes pretty obvious but the penny not dropping to some posters particularly those not from the UK.

If sensors etc are being recovered from other vessels then the cost of recovery and refurbishment should be less than buying say a new artisan antenna. Or the control system of a CAMM or the traverse and elevation gear of a 4.5, Could the fixed sonar array from a 23 be reused on a vessel of that size? The "New" electronics should be smaller except they recycle those

[shark bait]

if its merlin capable does it need a hull sonar

A single Merlin does not constitute a real ASW capability. A towed array, plus a helicopter is the minimum entry point.

My point being? Just because a warship doesn't happen to carry a towed sonar doesn't mean it isn't a Frigate and a 4,000 tonne vessel sporting a medium sized helicopter and hanger, Artisan, CAAM and a Five inch gun clearly isnt an OPV !

It isn't an escort. Its a big patrol vessel.

[marktigger]

if its merlin capable does it need a hull sonar

A single Merlin does not constitute a real ASW capability. A towed array, plus a helicopter is the minimum entry point.

so ocean with 6 merlin HMA2 onboard isn't an asw platform?

It isn't an escort. Its a big patrol vessel.

Its still a frigate, its still an escort. By your logic the Type 23 (GP) isn't a frigate or escort and neither was the Type 22/III.

Frigate does not = ASW vessel

[marktigger]

what happens when they get it wrong
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... s-coventry

[shark bait]

so ocean with 6 merlin HMA2 onboard isn't an asw platform?

6 Merlin could make a capable ASW package, which is a bit beyond the T31.

Frigate does not = ASW vessel

Frigate means jack shit.

There are Escorts, there are Patrol vessels, and there are utility vessels.

[Caribbean]

There are destroyers, frigates, sloops etc. What you are describing are functions performed by those classes of ship

[shark bait]

Those titles are meaningless these days.

There are 2 types of surface combatant, escorts and patrol vessels.

[abc123]

Then you need something like FTI or properly armed Type 26 ( but considering Type 26 will have no ASMs or anti-submarine weapons- at least for now, I wonder what's the real difference between T26 and River-class, except that one costs 1 billion and second 120 millions?

The first type 26 is at the minimum 6+ years away from been in service. Bringing new missiles in to service currently would make no sense.

Since they are anti-submarine frigates it would be madness not to equip them with any anti-submarine capacity other than their attached helicopter. I strongly believe that we will eventually buy American ASROC anti-submarine missiles to use it our VLS tubes. As well as our future anti-ship missile in the 2030s, with a stopgap missile like the LRASM anti-ship missile brought in the meanwhile.

If we choose to eventually fit the type 45s with VLS, then we massively increase its capability by using the same missles that we buy for the type 26.

Edit: To add to this LRASM as been demonstrated recently as been able to fire from an angled topside canister, meaning that it could be used on the type 31 in the container and on the type 26/45 in a VLS.

Sorry, forgot to answer it yesterday.

I would agree with you normaly, but: considering that during last 20 years RN has shrunk at least for a third, had allmost 10 years gap of carrier aviation, number of SSNs has shrunk for about 1/2 etc. And the picture is even more depressing when we see the trends. I find it very hard to believe that ANYTHING not in posession of the RN RIGHT NOW will be put on Type 26. After all, what has stopped the RN to buy ASROC for the last 50-60 years? Same thing for LRASM- speaking about them and the RN still didn't order enough Tomahawks for their Mk41 VLS on T26? Same thing for future ASM... Speaking about that option while having no money just to keep old Harpoons in service- it's like saying that you will buy a new Bentley, but you don't have enough money to change tires on your old Golf 2.

HISTORIA EST MAGISTRA VITAE. And here, Magistra says: You can't expect nothing good for the RN in next at least short-mid term period ( 10-15 years ).