Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Don't think that what I said and you responded are at odds. Or even touch each other, in any way??
- it was not about launch methods, either

"ecosystem" :idea:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Don't think that what I said and you responded are at odds. Or even touch each other, in any way??
- it was not about launch methods, either

"ecosystem" :idea:
You said that they were moving away from an environment where losing one contract kills the whole company. I disagreed.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

"ecosystem"
OK, now I understand.

So ;) , we are no nearer to an ecosystem ?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
"ecosystem"
OK, now I understand.

So ;) , we are no nearer to an ecosystem ?
I don't think any love is lost between Babcock's and Bae :(

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: love is lost between Babcock's and Bae
But they do need 'adopted sons' to stretch (and shrink) capacity at low cost... C&L springs to mind
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ETH »

Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
tomuk wrote: sent to Cammell Laird to launch RRS Sir David Attenborough
Small, but tangible proof of UK shipbuilding becoming an 'ecosystem' rather than just insular companies, in which type of environment losing one contract kills the whole company off
- cranes to Belfast, and all that
If Bae Govan doesn't get the type 26 batch 2 order, they close. Forever.
Good thing it will then :)

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Nothing really new here but good news for UKPLC nonetheless.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/1 ... ssia-grow/

In early November, the UK signed a treaty with Ukraine for British exports to go to Ukraine to enhance its maritime presence. The treaty will enable Kyiv to seek loans from the UK to buy British warships and missiles.

The deal will include the procurement of two mine countermeasure vessels, the joint production of eight missile ships, as well as the delivery of and retrofit of weapons systems to existing vessels.

There will also be the joint production of a frigate and technical support to the country for the building of naval infrastructure.

NickC
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Dragonfire speculation.

QinetiQ said that it expected losses of £14.5 million on what it called “a large, complex project” could it possibly be losses incurred on their coherently combined fibre laser and the associated phase control system for Dragonfire, after what appears to be the failure of Dragonfire.

What makes me wonder is the precedent on the Northrop Grumman laser burning out earlier this year.

From <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/qine ... -sv0xxnbfm>

SD67
Member
Posts: 326
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 17 Nov 2021, 23:29 Nothing really new here but good news for UKPLC nonetheless.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/1 ... ssia-grow/

In early November, the UK signed a treaty with Ukraine for British exports to go to Ukraine to enhance its maritime presence. The treaty will enable Kyiv to seek loans from the UK to buy British warships and missiles.

The deal will include the procurement of two mine countermeasure vessels, the joint production of eight missile ships, as well as the delivery of and retrofit of weapons systems to existing vessels.

There will also be the joint production of a frigate and technical support to the country for the building of naval infrastructure.
I just hope Ukraine is still there this time next year otherwise it could be a bit embarrassing donating ships to Putin.

I’m surprised HMG haven’t considered a barter deal like we did with the Saudis back in the day - Ukraine has a lot of gas

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 06 Nov 2021, 11:06 So as of the start of 2022 the RN will have

1 x Frigate
1 x Bay class
2 x River Class
4 x MCM

East of Suez for me if we added another frigate plus a tanker and RFA Argus this could allow 3 good groups EoS

Group 1 ) 1 x frigate , 1 x Bay , 4 x MCM = Gulf
Group 2 ) 1 x frigate , Argus = LRG EoS
group 3 ) 1 x tanker , 2 x OPV's = Patrol group EoS

Group 1 would remain in the gulf at all times and groups 2 & 3 could deploy across the Indo-Pacific and if needed come together to form a LRG+
I am still not sold on the two River B2 deployed EoS. They are perfect for flying the flag / assisting with humanitarian aid / policing fishing in EEZ in Caribbean, Falklands and Gibralter, all British Overseas Territories. EoS we have the tiny Pitcairn Island and Diego Garcia, the latter of which is mainly US base.

I am concerned we are putting Spey and Tamar in harms way where you would really need a Frigate to be able to stand up for itself against similar sized vessels.

But the rest of your suggestion I like, especially if the Frigate and Wildcats in the Gulf have been equipped with Martlett, to give a simple, cheapish extra weapon against fast boats and drones.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 17 Nov 2021, 23:29 Nothing really new here but good news for UKPLC nonetheless.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/1 ... ssia-grow/

In early November, the UK signed a treaty with Ukraine for British exports to go to Ukraine to enhance its maritime presence. The treaty will enable Kyiv to seek loans from the UK to buy British warships and missiles.

The deal will include the procurement of two mine countermeasure vessels, the joint production of eight missile ships, as well as the delivery of and retrofit of weapons systems to existing vessels.

There will also be the joint production of a frigate and technical support to the country for the building of naval infrastructure.
Let's hope that Ukraine does nt get further invaded by Russia until not only these shipbuilding contracts have been finished, but that also that we have been paid for it by Ukranian government!!

Forgive my black humour, but I feel the same whenever I see that Taiwan is investing in a two-three year long military acquisition project. In both cases I hope these are completed, delivered and paid for.

Presumably this will involve the joint production of T31e, finally justifying it's suffix!!

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1223
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

The Suffix was removed some time ago !

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Hmmm

Elementary my dear Watson……


BB85
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by BB85 »

The way China is behaving I'm surprised the US has not offered a military support package similar to Israel. Give them Iron Dome and enough anti ship and TLAM missiles to make China think twice and they will guarantee their sovereignty.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

BB85 wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:24 The way China is behaving I'm surprised the US has not offered a military support package similar to Israel. Give them Iron Dome and enough anti ship and TLAM missiles to make China think twice and they will guarantee their sovereignty.
We are talking about Taiwan I guess? They already have indigenous Cruise Missiles and a ABM capability, but China literally had hundreds of intermediate and short ranged ballistic missiles within range of Taiwan. Even sea based ABM systems are vulnerable to the number of AShMs China can deploy. Taiwan needs the US who are by law obliged to come to its aid if China were to attack.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Sorry going off topic again.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:43 Taiwan needs the US who are by law obliged to come to its aid if China were to attack.
You are thinking about Japan, not Taiwan.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Scimitar54 wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 07:58 The Suffix was removed some time ago !
Sorry it was an attempt at irony, as in selling one single T31 to Ukraine would justify the e suffix!
:)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1223
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Perhaps it should stand for Eukraine then !

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 21:10
Scimitar54 wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 07:58 The Suffix was removed some time ago !
Sorry it was an attempt at irony, as in selling one single T31 to Ukraine would justify the e suffix!
:)
But Babcocks already has an export order for Type 31 / A-140 with Indonesia for two ships

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Ron5 wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 17:53
Lord Jim wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:43 Taiwan needs the US who are by law obliged to come to its aid if China were to attack.
You are thinking about Japan, not Taiwan.
No I am pretty sure that at the same time the US recognised Communist China as the China it passed a law binding the USA to the defence of Taiwan if China tried to forcefully incorporate the islands.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The T-31 appears to be a slow burner on the export market. Because of its size and innate flexibility of design I can see other order following. It is also a good design for countries wanting to expand their own ship building capability to larger warships. Fully tooled up it is a viable warship that should be cheaper then other offerings on the market. IF design also makes it easier for the vessel to be upgraded later on by its owners. If the RN modified theirs it should also increase interest in the design from other countries, hopefully.

Post Reply