Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

I think there could be a justification for a simple affordable RB1 replacement, to be built at Rosyth as a gap filler after Batch 1 T31 is finished. Push T32 to the right, build half a dozen OPVs, give Babcocks another product to market overseas, replace the B1s, flog a couple to Ukraine heavily discounted, maybe ROI, maybe NZ. BAE and the Clyde would not be interested IMHO too many bigger fish to fry.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 3):
Astradynewargame_insomniacserge750

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

FWIW having a quick look at USN FY24 budget request, re their Constellation frigates, ASW suite ~£25 million, includes CAPTAS 4, the SQQ-89 underwater CMS system, expendable bathythermograph (XBT) launcher LM-48 and fathometer.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

FWIW having a quick look at USN FY24 budget request, re their Constellation frigates, the ASW suite ~£25 million, includes CAPTAS 4, the SQQ-89 underwater CMS system, expendable bathythermograph (XBT) launcher LM-48 and fathometer.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SD67 wrote: 24 Mar 2023, 11:59 I think there could be a justification for a simple affordable RB1 replacement, to be built at Rosyth as a gap filler after Batch 1 T31 is finished. Push T32 to the right, build half a dozen OPVs, give Babcocks another product to market overseas, replace the B1s, flog a couple to Ukraine heavily discounted, maybe ROI, maybe NZ.
It’s becoming difficult to see what Rosyth is going to do from 2026 onward if HMG doesn’t fund a gap filler. The 3-4 LSVs and second MROSS are possible solutions but another 5 Frigates between 2026 and 2031 are not realistic without a sizeable increase in RN manpower.

If the LSVs come in at 120m to 140m with a sizeable multi purpose hanger space plus a 30t crane then RN will be back on track. The T32s can then slot in to the Rosyth build schedule from 2029 giving ample time for an innovative design to be chosen and funded together with a realistic rise in manpower to allow suitable availability.

Astradyne
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 18 Nov 2020, 11:14
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Astradyne »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 24 Mar 2023, 11:31
shark bait wrote: 23 Mar 2023, 12:15 No matter how hard someone wishes it, an OPV will never come close to covering the loss of Frigate hulls.
It really depends what RN want the vessel to do.

If it is general maritime security patrols, Defence engagement and HADR then a properly appointed OPV is a better choice than a Frigate. OPV design is moving on and a River Class 1 or 2 is last generation now, still effective but not as effective as the next-gen designs.

The T31 was supposed to fill this maritime security niche but it looks increasingly likely they will be upgraded to a GP standard which will make the class much less economical in low threat areas. A crew allocation of 120 plus EMF, 24 CAMM, 8x NSM, 57mm/40mm, Wildcat etc plus regular Frigate refits will make the T31 an expensive vessel to operate for simple maritime security deployments.

A high capacity OPV with a crew allocation of 45 plus flight and EMF, a single 40mm and a Wildcat would much cheaper to operate, just as capable in maritime security tasks, much more capable in responding to a HADR emergency and also provide a stable and effective platform for launching/recovering off board systems.

Given the production logjam in the mid to late 2020s RN really need to get on with the RB1 replacements now.
….in the spirit of new cooperation, buying the other back from Australia.
Recommissioning Largs Bay would be great but I think the chances of that are unfortunately, vanishingly small.

I would argue the current B2s are not the ideal vessels for HADR. A vessel undertaking this role needs to be able to embark at least 1 helo, if not 2. This is why we have to suppliment the OPV with an RFA for half the year. If a T31 was tasked with APN, we could save the need to deploy the RFA. This to me would make deploying a T31 a cost benefit in my eyes.

I can't see the B1 being replaced. I think at least 2 of the current B2 taskings will be undertaken by T31, and those B2s replace the B1s. The B2s are in theory surplus to requirements, being built due to political incompetence, and the ceasing of fisheries protection duties.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Quick reality check - if the B2s did not exist then just think about what that would mean to the current deployments. Maybe HMS Forth would still be the FIPS, but nothing elsewhere.

You can argue about political incompetence, but in the end the alternative would just mean we have a couple of active T26s and a few less T23s.

The problem is that people have a illogical view that OPVs and other minor warships have no value, they are the same people who would resist adding a hangar to the design.

Also, I bet that a on station B2 and a RFA part time is still cheaper than a T31 which is over equipped for the role.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacCaribbean
”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

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Astradyne wrote: 24 Mar 2023, 15:42
Poiuytrewq wrote: 24 Mar 2023, 11:31
shark bait wrote: 23 Mar 2023, 12:15 No matter how hard someone wishes it, an OPV will never come close to covering the loss of Frigate hulls.
It really depends what RN want the vessel to do.

If it is general maritime security patrols, Defence engagement and HADR then a properly appointed OPV is a better choice than a Frigate. OPV design is moving on and a River Class 1 or 2 is last generation now, still effective but not as effective as the next-gen designs.

The T31 was supposed to fill this maritime security niche but it looks increasingly likely they will be upgraded to a GP standard which will make the class much less economical in low threat areas. A crew allocation of 120 plus EMF, 24 CAMM, 8x NSM, 57mm/40mm, Wildcat etc plus regular Frigate refits will make the T31 an expensive vessel to operate for simple maritime security deployments.

A high capacity OPV with a crew allocation of 45 plus flight and EMF, a single 40mm and a Wildcat would much cheaper to operate, just as capable in maritime security tasks, much more capable in responding to a HADR emergency and also provide a stable and effective platform for launching/recovering off board systems.

Given the production logjam in the mid to late 2020s RN really need to get on with the RB1 replacements now.
….in the spirit of new cooperation, buying the other back from Australia.
Recommissioning Largs Bay would be great but I think the chances of that are unfortunately, vanishingly small.

I would argue the current B2s are not the ideal vessels for HADR. A vessel undertaking this role needs to be able to embark at least 1 helo, if not 2. This is why we have to suppliment the OPV with an RFA for half the year. If a T31 was tasked with APN, we could save the need to deploy the RFA. This to me would make deploying a T31 a cost benefit in my eyes.

I can't see the B1 being replaced. I think at least 2 of the current B2 taskings will be undertaken by T31, and those B2s replace the B1s. The B2s are in theory surplus to requirements, being built due to political incompetence, and the ceasing of fisheries protection duties.
What was that about "ceasing of fisheries protection duties"?

The Uk does have the world's fifth largest maritime zone. We do need smaller ships to patrol and enforce this, both in home waters and BOT's. It is only a matter of time before Chinese mega fishing fleets have scoured clear the seas closer to them and look to our waters to feed their population.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Repulse

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Astradyne wrote: 24 Mar 2023, 15:42 I would argue the current B2s are not the ideal vessels for HADR.
Completely agree.
HADR. A vessel undertaking this role needs to be able to embark at least 1 helo, if not 2. This is why we have to suppliment the OPV with an RFA for half the year. If a T31 was tasked with APN, we could save the need to deploy the RFA. This to me would make deploying a T31 a cost benefit in my eyes.
Don’t agree here.

A Frigate is not best suited for any form of HADR never mind a meaningful response. A Frigate is great for anti-narcotics and anti-piracy patrols but is it the best use of scarce resources?

Gone are the days when RN could dispatch a couple of Frigates for even the most unimportant of deployments. With limited resources the Frigates and Destroyers have other more important taskings to perform. IMO a new class of larger, more capable OPVs could help an overstretched RN make better use of its Amphibs and escorts.

APT(N) doesn’t really require a Frigate or an auxiliary or a RB2. It requires a cheap and reliable vessel with excellent availability and a modest crew allocation. It should be made from mainly commercial standards, be lightly armed, possess good speed, endurance and manoeuvrability plus a shallow draft. It should have a large hanger for multiple helos and UAVs plus extensive medical facilities and an additional space for a modest EMF. It’s needs a RORO capability plus a heavy lift deck crane and the ability to launch/recover a mexefloat.

None of this need be more expensive than the replacement cost of an RB2.
I can't see the B1 being replaced. I think at least 2 of the current B2 taskings will be undertaken by T31, and those B2s replace the B1s. The B2s are in theory surplus to requirements, being built due to political incompetence, and the ceasing of fisheries protection duties.
Can’t argue with the political incompetence but I do think the RB1s will have to be replaced unless HMG retreats west of Suez once again. That seems unlikely especially with AUKUS and CPTPP.

The cheapest and fastest way to enlarge the fleet is to build additional OPVs that are much larger and more versatile than the RB2s for use in low threat areas. Taking everything into consideration it’s difficult to see what else RN can do but build more OPVs apart from maybe reactivate the Waves.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Is this that Black Swan class proposal being 15+ years ahead of its time?

I just dug up the 2012 note - 2000t to 4000t, small core crew, room to operate various offboard systems.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 2):
Repulsewargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5551
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the way forward right now for the RN is to build

3 more Type 31
4 x Vard-7-313

Keep the RB2's and split the fleet like so

4 x T-31 , 2 x Vard-7-313 , 2 x RB2's in the Indo-Pacific
4 x T-31 , 2 x Vard-7-313 , 3 x RB2's in the Atlantic , Med , Baltic

1 x High readiness CSG = 1 x Carrier , 2 x T-45's , 2 x T-26's
1 x High readiness LRG = 1 x LPD , 2 x Bays , Argus , 1 x T-45 , 1 x T-26

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

@Tempest - what you describe is a global navy. Whilst I’m not convinced by the suggested fleet, what I am fully onboard with is the need for the RN to be engaged outside of the NATO region. This may upset some who want to play armies on the Eastern boarders but my view is that the is a new Global game being played and to quote Sir Walter Raleigh:
“For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself,”
As well as the high north (Artic), Baltic and Mediterranean, with China, Russia and Iran there are many important regions where this game is and will be played both directly and through proxies. These regions are critical to current and future trade and ability to protect our collective interests with our allies.

The Red Sea and western Indian Ocean:

https://www.gard.no/web/articles?documentId=34287407

The South Atlantic the Cape Horn:

https://worldcrunch.com/amp/argentina-c ... 2659477566

The Cape of Good Hope:

https://www.reuters.com/world/south-afr ... 023-02-17/

The Panama Canal:

https://dialogochino.net/en/trade-inves ... -us-talks/

And that’s before we discuss the South China Sea and the Pacific. And also, in addition to this is our commitments to policing / protecting our BOTs and doing our bit to protect things like the new protected marine zones.

What is the RN’s response to these? It cannot be pretending we are a superpower with our empire sending battle fleets, we can’t afford it and it will be counter productive. It will need to be through alliances, appropriate prioritisation and in most cases subtle / low key presence backed by a credible means to project power if needed.

It would be an interesting discussion to see what role in each the RN should play and then what platforms are required.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 3):
Poiuytrewqserge750wargame_insomniac
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5551
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

My fleet as laid out is in someways the lower end when we look at it

East of Suez
Gulf = 1 x T-31 and 1 x Vard-7-313 as a MCM mother ship
Indian Ocean = 1 x T-31 , 1 x RB2 , 1 x Vard-7-313 as LRG/S - HRDA support ship
Pacific = 1 x T-31 , 1 x RB2
1 x T-31 in Maintenance

Atlantic

South Atlantic = 1 x T-31 , 1 x RB2
AP/N = 1 x Vard-7-313
Med = 1 x T-31 , 1 x Vard-7-313
Home fleet = 1 x T-31 , 2 x RB2's
1 x T-31 in Maintenance

This allows the RN to operate both sides of Africa the Gulf , Caribbean , Home waters plus keep a toe in the Pacific

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 09:44 For me the way forward right now for the RN is to build

3 more Type 31
4 x Vard-7-313
Completely agree.

However that is an expensive proposition given that HMG is strangling the defence budget in real terms once again.

The extra T31s is important as is upgrading the entire class up to a credible GP standard. This is a priority now.

The Vard 7 313 is a great option but there are cheaper options if such a class of such capable vessel is unaffordable.

The Vard 7 312 is cheaper but also very capable. Slightly adapted for UK use by:
- Lengthen the hull to 140m, keep beam at 22m
- Move the superstructure forward ~12m
- Split the funnels
- Add a stern ramp
- Add davits for 15m craft
- Increasing the flight deck to two landing spots
- Increase the hanger space to four medium helos
- Aim for 24 knots and 10,000nm range

Absolutely no reason why a class of four could not be built in the U.K. for £500m.

https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... raphic.pdf

Vard can rapidly adapt proven hull forms to meet specific user requirements. IMO either the 313 or an adapted 312 would be an excellent option for high capacity OPVs when the RB1s are replaced.
Hopefully the planned LSVs are heading in this direction.

Another option which could be even better and completely British is BMTs Ellida in a 140m configuration. With the floodable dock deleted and the speed increased to 24knts it would tick all the boxes. It would be great to see the BMT concepts for Ellida 120, 140, 160, 180 as all that has been released so far is Ellida 200 which is hugely underwhelming for the MRSS.

https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-th ... l-concept/

1 x High readiness CSG = 1 x Carrier , 2 x T-45's , 2 x T-26's
1 x High readiness LRG = 1 x LPD , 2 x Bays , Argus , 1 x T-45 , 1 x T-26
I think the high readiness CSG is a given the LRG configuration less so.

Could the solution be to base one LRG in the UK with the second in Duqm and rotate the crews through both? The combined LSG would only ever be formed as a maximum effort anyway.

Something like this:

LRG(N): Albion, 1x Bay, 1x Tide
LRG(S): Bulwark, 1x Bay, 1x Tide

Argus and PWLS could then share the provision of the aviation capacity to ensure excellent availability.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5551
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 17:02
Tempest414 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 09:44 For me the way forward right now for the RN is to build

3 more Type 31
4 x Vard-7-313
Completely agree.

However that is an expensive proposition given that HMG is strangling the defence budget in real terms once again.

The extra T31s is important as is upgrading the entire class up to a credible GP standard. This is a priority now.

The Vard 7 313 is a great option but there are cheaper options if such a class of such capable vessel is unaffordable.

The Vard 7 312 is cheaper but also very capable. Slightly adapted for UK use by:
- Lengthen the hull to 140m, keep beam at 22m
- Move the superstructure forward ~12m
- Split the funnels
- Add a stern ramp
- Add davits for 15m craft
- Increasing the flight deck to two landing spots
- Increase the hanger space to four medium helos
- Aim for 24 knots and 10,000nm range

Absolutely no reason why a class of four could not be built in the U.K. for £500m.

https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... raphic.pdf

Vard can rapidly adapt proven hull forms to meet specific user requirements. IMO either the 313 or an adapted 312 would be an excellent option for high capacity OPVs when the RB1s are replaced.
Hopefully the planned LSVs are heading in this direction.

Another option which could be even better and completely British is BMTs Ellida in a 140m configuration. With the floodable dock deleted and the speed increased to 24knts it would tick all the boxes. It would be great to see the BMT concepts for Ellida 120, 140, 160, 180 as all that has been released so far is Ellida 200 which is hugely underwhelming for the MRSS.

https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-th ... l-concept/

1 x High readiness CSG = 1 x Carrier , 2 x T-45's , 2 x T-26's
1 x High readiness LRG = 1 x LPD , 2 x Bays , Argus , 1 x T-45 , 1 x T-26
I think the high readiness CSG is a given the LRG configuration less so.

Could the solution be to base one LRG in the UK with the second in Duqm and rotate the crews through both? The combined LSG would only ever be formed as a maximum effort anyway.

Something like this:

LRG(N): Albion, 1x Bay, 1x Tide
LRG(S): Bulwark, 1x Bay, 1x Tide

Argus and PWLS could then share the provision of the aviation capacity to ensure excellent availability.
The standard LRG as it stands is 1 x LPD , 1 x Bay , 1 x Escort , and ether Argus or a Point class this has been standard from 2018 so to add another Bay and a extra escort in my mind could be done this would mean that the high readiness CSG and LRG would take up 3 x T-45 and 3 x T-26 at anytime

By having 2 x Vard-7-313's East of Suez one would take on the role of LRG/S support ship able to take on board a company size EMF when needed and be supported by the regional T-31 in ether the Indian Ocean or Pacific this also frees up the Bay that is currently in the Gulf to join the high readiness LRG as the second Vard-7 would become the Gulf based MCM mother ship

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself,”

This is indeed a true statement and in itself a good basis for the UK to follow as a strategic goal. At one stage in the 1700s the city of London only agreed to fund the RN it the was a guarantee in law that 25% of its strength would be dedicated to trade protection. This was set in a time before the advent of large continental powers in the forms currently of China and the US and probably at some point in the next few decades india.

So while it is a valid and desirable strategic uk policy it has its limits for medium sized powers like the UK in todays world. It you look at uk trade and countries of similar outlook it does not warrant the lay down some of these fantasy’s fleets suggest or anywhere near it.

It also needs to be recognised what UK trade looks like and how it will evolve. Now services account for a vast amount of uk trade a number roughly equivalent to 40% of gdp a number that will likely grow. As we now have set a desire for energy independent and with being on the cusp of the next Industrial Revolution with the coming of age of 3d printing it fundamentally change the length and construct of how trade is achieved.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

One thought for example on the South Atlantic is that by adding a T31 “Frigate”, it can be seen as an escalation and therefore an excuse for China to be more involved.

Better in my view would be to build a ship to a similar specification as was the last HMS Endurance which was capable of carrying two Lynx, and perhaps operate HMS Protector alongside allowing patrols of a larger area.

Doing this, with some limited updates to HMS Forth, and a couple of P8s and UAVs operating alongside the Tiffies feels an appropriate and affordable presence to the area and broader South Atlantic region, especially with occasional SSN and CSG visits.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 19:32 One thought for example on the South Atlantic is that by adding a T31 “Frigate”, it can be seen as an escalation and therefore an excuse for China to be more involved.

Better in my view would be to build a ship to a similar specification as was the last HMS Endurance which was capable of carrying two Lynx, and perhaps operate HMS Protector alongside allowing patrols of a larger area.

Doing this, with some limited updates to HMS Forth, and a couple of P8s and UAVs operating alongside the Tiffies feels an appropriate and affordable presence to the area and broader South Atlantic region, especially with occasional SSN and CSG visits.
2 P8 cost more to purchase than a single type 31. You consider deploying a type 31 is escalatory but deploying maritime patrol aircraft, UAVs, with visiting ssns and a csg is not????

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 17:49 The standard LRG as it stands is 1 x LPD , 1 x Bay , 1 x Escort , and ether Argus or a Point class this has been standard from 2018 so to add another Bay and a extra escort in my mind could be done this would mean that the high readiness CSG and LRG would take up 3 x T-45 and 3 x T-26 at anytime

By having 2 x Vard-7-313's East of Suez one would take on the role of LRG/S support ship able to take on board a company size EMF when needed and be supported by the regional T-31 in ether the Indian Ocean or Pacific this also frees up the Bay that is currently in the Gulf to join the high readiness LRG as the second Vard-7 would become the Gulf based MCM mother ship
Interesting how we would use the same assets in different ways!

I think my viewpoint is based around what @Repluse suggested previously regarding the wider geopolitical considerations. Simply put Africa has been completely neglected in recent years and the only thing that seems to matter in Latin America is minimising any dust up over the Falklands and selling cut price naval assets to Brazil. The Caribbean currently gets whatever assets are not required elsewhere and anything east of the Indian Ocean can be served by an OPV flying an extra large flag.

The UK can and should do much much more but the budget in not infinite. It's a question of priorities plus smart procurement and retention.

IMO current planning is going in the right direction but the T32 and MRSS programmes need a rethink.

- The 2x CVF, 6x T45, 8x T26 core is acceptable but nothing more than the bare minimum.
- Eight T31s upgraded to GP standard will be cheaper to procure and operate than five T31 patrol frigates and five hybrid T32s.
- If the replacement Amphib budget is around £2.5bn then three modest LHDs and three BMT Ellida 200s MRSS is affordable.
- The four Tides and three FSS are a great result and the best outcome RN could have hoped for.

The above is the war fighting force (together with the SSNs) which appears affordable and proportionate for the UK. The MCM element is currently in flux and it isn't exactly clear what assets will ultimately be required at present but time will tell.

These core RN/RFA assets are required in the North Atlantic, High North, Gulf, Indian Ocean and the Indo Pacific. They should concentrate on these ares and make their presence felt as much as possible.

That leaves massive gaps all over the rest of the world that will require filling with much less costly vessels. Is this the role of the "3 or 4 LSVs" or are they to be the MCM motherships? The answer to that question is crucial IMO.

If the LSVs are commercially derived PSVs with a box welded over the working deck to provide a basic covered mission space then they will be both efficient and cost effective but little use for anything other than MCM deployments. That helps relieve the Bay in the Gulf but what other asset will it replace when much of the MCM role can be shore based going forward?

If the LSVs were multi-use patrol and HADR vessels capable of launching/recovering XLUUVs, MCM off board systems, 15m craft, multiple RHIBs as well as embark multiple helos and a sizeable EMF they would be game changers for RN. Meaningful HADR would require extensive medical facilities, a modest RoRo and deck crane together with a mexeflote capability. This would seem like the more logical option or RN is going to end up with more PSVs than OPVs!

If the LSVs are in affect MRVs or (HCOPVs) then the balance of the fleet in nearing completion. Again cost effective and proportionate.

UK Home Fleet
RN: 2x CVF, 6x T45, 8x T23 ASW/T26, 4x T31 GP, 3x RB2,1x Albion
RFA: 4x Tides, 3x FSS, 2x Bays

EoS Fleet (Duqm)
RN: 4x T31 GP, 1x Albion, 1x LSV
RFA: Argus, 1x Bay, 1x PSV (MCM Gulf), 1x Wave (DG)

Atlantic Patrol (Forward Based)
Caribbean; 1x LSV
Gibraltar: 1x LSV, 1x RB2
Falklands 1x RB2

- The UK fleet could concentrate on the North Atlantic, High North, UK EEZ with one annual CSG routine global deployment.

- The EoS fleet could continue Kipion with a T31 and the PSV. The LSV could concentrate on West Africa and the other 3x T31s could patrol from Suez to the Info Pacific. LRG(S) could concentrate on the Indian Ocean and Indo Pacific when activated and the Wave could operate from DG.

- The LSV in the Caribbean could provide anti narcotics patrols plus a meaningful HADR response during Hurricane season. The RB2 in the Falklands could carry on as before but reinforced with regular additional patrols into the South Atlantic from the Gibraltar based LSV and RB2 if required plus occasional visits from a UK based T31. Primarily the LSV and RB2 operating from Gib could contcentrate on East Africa and the Med. A meaningful but proportionate presence in the South Atlantic provided by cost effective vessels.

Clearly the design and capabilities of the LSVs are going to be crucial to the overall balance of the Fleet.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 20:44 2 P8 cost more to purchase than a single type 31. You consider deploying a type 31 is escalatory but deploying maritime patrol aircraft, UAVs, with visiting ssns and a csg is not????
I’d say the two were similar in terms of cost, but two P8s do not give the same escalation as they are defensive by their nature. What they can do is provide enhanced surveillance over the whole region, providing critical data to adjust the threat posture.

SSNs remain invisible and a CSG visit will not cause permanent escalation just a reminder.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 22:13
SW1 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 20:44 2 P8 cost more to purchase than a single type 31. You consider deploying a type 31 is escalatory but deploying maritime patrol aircraft, UAVs, with visiting ssns and a csg is not????
I’d say the two were similar in terms of cost, but two P8s do not give the same escalation as they are defensive by their nature. What they can do is provide enhanced surveillance over the whole region, providing critical data to adjust the threat posture.

SSNs remain invisible and a CSG visit will not cause permanent escalation just a reminder.
What offensive weapons is on a type 31?

We maintained a frigate and a tanker in the area up until about 2015. There is zero escalation placing a frigate in the region.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 22:43 What offensive weapons is on a type 31?

We maintained a frigate and a tanker in the area up until about 2015. There is zero escalation placing a frigate in the region.


You are correct that as currently configured the T31 paper frigate could do little offensive operations.

However, it doesn’t really matter, you deploy a frigate when you believe the threat to be high or you want to a visible capability to project power beyond the EEZ. The fact that we are deploying one that isn’t capable is just embarrassing nothing more.

Also, who cares that we used to have one deployed, it’s the direction of travel that matters.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 08:47
SW1 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 22:43 What offensive weapons is on a type 31?

We maintained a frigate and a tanker in the area up until about 2015. There is zero escalation placing a frigate in the region.


You are correct that as currently configured the T31 paper frigate could do little offensive operations.

However, it doesn’t really matter, you deploy a frigate when you believe the threat to be high or you want to a visible capability to project power beyond the EEZ. The fact that we are deploying one that isn’t capable is just embarrassing nothing more.

Also, who cares that we used to have one deployed, it’s the direction of travel that matters.
You deploy a frigate for oceanic patrol, escort and information gathering. Type 31 is no different to the rest of the escort fleet in terms of its “offensive” capabilities. It’s there for historic roles of sea power.

You talk about the importance of trade as there is more oil that goes down east Africa and round the cape of good hope than there is goes thru the bab el mandeb and more Chinese interest int he cape and pirate incidents in west Africa a frigate would be an appropriate option.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5551
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 21:34
Tempest414 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 17:49 The standard LRG as it stands is 1 x LPD , 1 x Bay , 1 x Escort , and ether Argus or a Point class this has been standard from 2018 so to add another Bay and a extra escort in my mind could be done this would mean that the high readiness CSG and LRG would take up 3 x T-45 and 3 x T-26 at anytime

By having 2 x Vard-7-313's East of Suez one would take on the role of LRG/S support ship able to take on board a company size EMF when needed and be supported by the regional T-31 in ether the Indian Ocean or Pacific this also frees up the Bay that is currently in the Gulf to join the high readiness LRG as the second Vard-7 would become the Gulf based MCM mother ship
Interesting how we would use the same assets in different ways!

I think my viewpoint is based around what @Repluse suggested previously regarding the wider geopolitical considerations. Simply put Africa has been completely neglected in recent years and the only thing that seems to matter in Latin America is minimising any dust up over the Falklands and selling cut price naval assets to Brazil. The Caribbean currently gets whatever assets are not required elsewhere and anything east of the Indian Ocean can be served by an OPV flying an extra large flag.

The UK can and should do much much more but the budget in not infinite. It's a question of priorities plus smart procurement and retention.

IMO current planning is going in the right direction but the T32 and MRSS programmes need a rethink.

- The 2x CVF, 6x T45, 8x T26 core is acceptable but nothing more than the bare minimum.
- Eight T31s upgraded to GP standard will be cheaper to procure and operate than five T31 patrol frigates and five hybrid T32s.
- If the replacement Amphib budget is around £2.5bn then three modest LHDs and three BMT Ellida 200s MRSS is affordable.
- The four Tides and three FSS are a great result and the best outcome RN could have hoped for.

The above is the war fighting force (together with the SSNs) which appears affordable and proportionate for the UK. The MCM element is currently in flux and it isn't exactly clear what assets will ultimately be required at present but time will tell.

These core RN/RFA assets are required in the North Atlantic, High North, Gulf, Indian Ocean and the Indo Pacific. They should concentrate on these ares and make their presence felt as much as possible.

That leaves massive gaps all over the rest of the world that will require filling with much less costly vessels. Is this the role of the "3 or 4 LSVs" or are they to be the MCM motherships? The answer to that question is crucial IMO.

If the LSVs are commercially derived PSVs with a box welded over the working deck to provide a basic covered mission space then they will be both efficient and cost effective but little use for anything other than MCM deployments. That helps relieve the Bay in the Gulf but what other asset will it replace when much of the MCM role can be shore based going forward?

If the LSVs were multi-use patrol and HADR vessels capable of launching/recovering XLUUVs, MCM off board systems, 15m craft, multiple RHIBs as well as embark multiple helos and a sizeable EMF they would be game changers for RN. Meaningful HADR would require extensive medical facilities, a modest RoRo and deck crane together with a mexeflote capability. This would seem like the more logical option or RN is going to end up with more PSVs than OPVs!

If the LSVs are in affect MRVs or (HCOPVs) then the balance of the fleet in nearing completion. Again cost effective and proportionate.

UK Home Fleet
RN: 2x CVF, 6x T45, 8x T23 ASW/T26, 4x T31 GP, 3x RB2,1x Albion
RFA: 4x Tides, 3x FSS, 2x Bays

EoS Fleet (Duqm)
RN: 4x T31 GP, 1x Albion, 1x LSV
RFA: Argus, 1x Bay, 1x PSV (MCM Gulf), 1x Wave (DG)

Atlantic Patrol (Forward Based)
Caribbean; 1x LSV
Gibraltar: 1x LSV, 1x RB2
Falklands 1x RB2

- The UK fleet could concentrate on the North Atlantic, High North, UK EEZ with one annual CSG routine global deployment.

- The EoS fleet could continue Kipion with a T31 and the PSV. The LSV could concentrate on West Africa and the other 3x T31s could patrol from Suez to the Info Pacific. LRG(S) could concentrate on the Indian Ocean and Indo Pacific when activated and the Wave could operate from DG.

- The LSV in the Caribbean could provide anti narcotics patrols plus a meaningful HADR response during Hurricane season. The RB2 in the Falklands could carry on as before but reinforced with regular additional patrols into the South Atlantic from the Gibraltar based LSV and RB2 if required plus occasional visits from a UK based T31. Primarily the LSV and RB2 operating from Gib could contcentrate on East Africa and the Med. A meaningful but proportionate presence in the South Atlantic provided by cost effective vessels.

Clearly the design and capabilities of the LSVs are going to be crucial to the overall balance of the Fleet.
Well I have said for some time I would prefer to see 8 Type 31's armed with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 to 36 CAMM , 8 NSM plus I would also like to see 12 GSDB

I think with the 5 billion for Type 32 and MRSS we could get 3 x Enforcer LHD's , 3 x Enforcer LPD's , 3 x T-31+ , 6 x Vard-7-313 plus the upgrade of the first 5 T-31's to plus standard this could allow

Atlantic fleet
2 x Carriers , 2 x LHD's , 3 x LPD's , 6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 4 x T-31 , 5 x RB2's , 2 x Vard-7-313

East of Suez Fleet
1 x LHD , 4 x T-31 , 4 x Vard-7-313

Now just because a LHD is deployed EoS dose not mean it has to have troops and helicopters embarked it is there to allow rapid deployment of those assets to the region if needed or the support of allied assets in the region

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 21:34 If the LSVs were multi-use patrol and HADR vessels capable of launching/recovering XLUUVs, MCM off board systems, 15m craft, multiple RHIBs as well as embark multiple helos and a sizeable EMF they would be game changers for RN. Meaningful HADR would require extensive medical facilities, a modest RoRo and deck crane together with a mexeflote capability. This would seem like the more logical option or RN is going to end up with more PSVs than OPVs!
I see the Overseas Patrol Squadron being the key formation through which the RN can provide the appropriate (low) level of presence in all the regions stated. Combined with RAF and to a degree Army assets we can use our BOT based capabilities to exert influence. But to be clear this needs to be subtle and be seen differently from the high end war fighting fleet.

Your description of a potential LSV role and design is interesting and I agree with a lot of it. What I would say though is that for it to be effective it needs to be present. This means hull numbers, it means ability to operate in both deep and shallow waters. A balanced fleet is key, and I’d argue the B2 Rivers are a critical part of this squadron, I do not see any need to operate them in UK waters - UK EEZ patrolling is better handled by other assets, and I’d argue part of this would be perhaps a small fleet of say 3 commercially designed PSV which can double as MCM / Survey motherships supporting the 2 MRoSS and OSV.

I would say the following would be an appropriate composition for the Overseas Patrol Squadron:

- 5 B2 Rivers (with minor self defence upgrades)
- 5 Medium multi-role LSVs
- 3 Ice Patrol Ships (IPS)
- 2 Larger multi-role support (HMRS) ships capable of HADR and low level company level FCF operations - probably a Bay sized RFA with a hangar for 2-3 helicopters.

I’m terms of forward basing I’d see something like:

- Artic: 1 IPS
- Caribbean: 1 B2 + 1 LSV
- Gibraltar: 1 B2 + 1 LSV + 1 HMRS
- South Atlantic: 1 B2 + 2 IPS
- Gulf: 1 LSV
- Oman: 1 B2 + 1 LSV + 1 HMRS
- Indo Pacific (Singapore): 1 B2 + 1 LSV

The rest of the fleet can the be configured into two groups (aside from CASD)

- Home Patrol Squadron: 2 MRoSS, 1 OSV and 3 multi role PSVs
- UK based Power Projection Fleet (PPF): 2 CVFs, 2 LPDs, 6 T45s, 9 T26s, 6 (equipped) T31s, 1 ASS, 3 FSS, 4 Tankers and 11 SSNs.

Units from the PPF can be deployed globally as the threat / requirement dictates - e.g. a T31 to Kipion.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
donald_of_tokyo
”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

Post Reply