Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SW1]

There is much snearring with type 31. But it’s trying something different and others are starting copy the idea with different base designs. If it works it will of been a gd move. Having a capable and relatively simply platform that can aide quicker integration and testing of different ideas and systems has much potential and should be encouraged.

[Poiuytrewq]

Trouble is that Absalon trades in two diesels to make room for the flex deck and the result is a rather slow frigate.

100% agree and I maintain that if RN had of really wanted Absalon then it would have been the T31.

However, would a hybrid Iver Huitfeildt/Absalon give RN what is required for T32?

Basically a T31 plus the best parts of Absalon.

- the double Merlin capable hanger

- the twin engine room possibly with hybrid propulsion

- a shortened flex-deck with a higher degree of compartmentalisation and side hatches rather than a stern ramp to allow unhindered operation of the tail.

- optimisation of the amidships boat houses to create a T26 style mission area.

- Mk45 backed up by 57mm/Phalanx or twin 40mm

- 16x Mk41 plus 24/36 CAMM and 8x ASuM canisters.

Artisan, 2150 and 2087 fitted

Set the target price at £600m per hull or £3bn for a class of 5. Given the cost of the T31 somewhere in this ballpark should be realistic.

As the T32 are to be the designated LRG escorts they need to be credible both above and below the surface and if Babcock can't produce such an escort for around £600m then we really should just be building more T26's.

[Ron5]

There is much snearring with type 31. But it’s trying something different and others are starting copy the idea with different base designs. If it works it will of been a gd move. Having a capable and relatively simply platform that can aide quicker integration and testing of different ideas and systems has much potential and should be encouraged.

As I've said before, 95% of my problem with the Type 31 is the role that it's been designed to perform. I just don't think that's a role worth filling when the River B2's seem to be such a roaring success and can do much of the same.

Not sure who is copying the Type 31. Not sure there's anything much to copy. It's only unique feature seems to be Babcock's willingness to sign up to build them so cheaply. I don't know that they enable faster integration or testing. In reality, the A140 design is no way as trend setting as the T26's.

P.S. "snearring" ???????

[Ron5]

Trouble is that Absalon trades in two diesels to make room for the flex deck and the result is a rather slow frigate.

100% agree and I maintain that if RN had of really wanted Absalon then it would have been the T31.

However, would a hybrid Iver Huitfeildt/Absalon give RN what is required for T32?

Basically a T31 plus the best parts of Absalon.

- the double Merlin capable hanger

- the twin engine room possibly with hybrid propulsion

- a shortened flex-deck with a higher degree of compartmentalisation and side hatches rather than a stern ramp to allow unhindered operation of the tail.

- optimisation of the amidships boat houses to create a T26 style mission area.

- Mk45 backed up by 57mm/Phalanx or twin 40mm

- 16x Mk41 plus 24/36 CAMM and 8x ASuM canisters.

Artisan, 2150 and 2087 fitted

Set the target price at £600m per hull or £3bn for a class of 5. Given the cost of the T31 somewhere in this ballpark should be realistic.

As the T32 are to be the designated LRG escorts they need to be credible both above and below the surface and if Babcock can't produce such an escort for around £600m then we really should just be building more T26's.

Fair question but at that pricing, I'm with Donald-san, I'd take 3 additional Type 26's over 5 of these. To paraphrase: "quality has a quality of it's own that cannot be replicated with quantity".

[Lord Jim]

Everyone else who is either interested in a T-31 based design or is being courted to buy it is being offered a far more capable design that is equipped as a true warship rather then the "Gunboat" we are buying. It is almost a repeat of the T-26 where Australia and Canada seem to be building more capable version that the Royal Navy.

[Poiuytrewq]

I'd take 3 additional Type 26's....

Very tempting I agree but would 11x T26's be enough to escort the CSG plus both LRG(N) and LRG(S) concurrently whilst also conducting TAPS?

I think it would require thirteen to fourteen T26 minimum.

[Lord Jim]

Well you wouldn't want a T-31 doing either of those jobs without being escorted themselves.

[Ron5]

I'd take 3 additional Type 26's....

Very tempting I agree but would 11x T26's be enough to escort the CSG plus both LRG(N) and LRG(S) concurrently whilst also conducting TAPS?

I think it would require thirteen to fourteen T26 minimum.

We know the T26 will have a very credible ASW capability. We don't know that the T32 will.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yeah, carrying on this discussion with almost non-existent facts/ releases is difficult
- at least the conceptual C1,2,3s gave ammo for a couple of decades, to debate pros and cons

[donald_of_tokyo]

How much redesign are we talking here to get from type 31 to my plan for type 32

Radar can stay the same
CMS may or may not need a small uplift
A good sonar for Littoral work will cost that much
The current hangar can fit two wildcats
The current hull has two lay outs under the flight deck
Weapons changing the 57mm for a 5" will not brake the bank and fitting 16 to 24 Mk-41 like wise

You say type 26 cost 3.2 billion for 3 ships with detailed design cost and build inefficiency and slow rate but you don't afford type 31 the same in as much as the 2 billion for 5 ships include detail design costs new infrastructure costs build inefficiency and the out line design costs of two other ships so I think by the time you take all this into account I think you will back closer to 2.25 billion for 5 ships like I have laid out so it would be 5 ships as laid out or 2 type 26

As I said, if the UXV handling capability is similar to that of T31, it could be cheap.
But, it Babcock gonna use "The current hull has two lay outs under the flight deck" to redesign it as for UXV handling, it will cost a lot. For example, adding a "Crossover" like system will be very very expensive. It will be much cheaper the re-arrange the middle waist, to make it a mission bay (but this will also cost a lot. See how carefully Babcock kept the IH design unchanged as much as possible. Just ripping off weapons kits and sensors, not adding much. Even the "forth" boat alcove has been ditched, for simplicity).

Adding Mk41 VLS means complicating the system. And what costs the most is such complex systems integration. T31 is cheap because it is very simple = lightly armed.

But, if without your "16 to 24 Mk-41", and modest mission bay amidship (less than T26 but better than T31), then I agree 2.25 billion for 5 T32 is doable.

Anyway, £2.25B amounts to 2.5 T26, as I said. So, no big objection here. But, if we want T32 to be more powerful, then T26 suddenly starts to become a big rival.

IF the T32 turns out to be Absalon based then a lot could be achieved within a similar cost envelope to the T31 as long as weapons/sensors are comparable. If the enhanced ASW capability comes primarily from off board systems then the unit cost of the Frigate shouldn't necessarily increase dramatically.

In simple terms it looks like approx £1bn to £1.2bn will procure 1x T26 or 2x T32 or 3x T31.

From a political point of view the lure of three for the price of one must be irresistible.

Redesigning Absalon hull to change its flexible deck (just a long vehicle deck in the hull) to UXV handling system may not be cheap, but doable, I agree. But, Absalon is slow. And just because it is slow = has less diesel engines onboard, Absalon has a large internal volume.

If T32 is based on Absalon and armed as T31, it will surely be expensive than T31. T31 hull is very carefully designed NOT TO CHANGE anything from IH. Adding only 1 more boat alcove was the most they could do in view of re-design.

On the cost, I think "1 more T26" will be £800M, "3 more T31" will be £800-900 (I agree), but I have no idea how much T32 may cost.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Would say the T31 might be the same platform as the IH but its not a minimal modification but a major one from the IH, the weapons and sensors fit bear no relation to the IH fit which you could argue is an equivalent to a T45 if not better as its operational not in a shipyard having its propulsion system sorted, T31 is a dumbed down redesigned IH at unknown cost eg out go the STANFLEX modules, LWT launches, APAR radar, Mk41 and Mk56 VLS cells, 76mm guns, deck canisters for Harpoon etc and as Lord Jim said its now a "Police Gunboat with a very long range and the size and shape of a Warship but that is it" all driven by the Treasury reaction to being conned by the MoD/RN over the out turn cost of the very large and expensive T26 which was way over earlier MoD/RN estimates, the Treasury imposed the cancellation of 5 T26's and the ridicoulously low cost limit for the 5 ship T31 replacements.

Banning complex weapons/sensors, and fitting simpler (actually very simple) ones in place is the cheapest "modification". I understand CMS is also similar, but simply significantly downgraded = can re-use many of the design, because it is just "not locating A", "not wiring B", and "significantly reduced interference between systems = very easy to integrate".

Now it is £3.2B for 3 hulls

Puzzled by your figure as some time ago on T26 thread MOD figures showed it as a £4 billion programme for the three ships which don't think included all the elements included in the equivalent of the £2 billion for the five T31's?

Good point. I am just comparing the initial contract cost of T26 with initial contract cost of T31. (Originally, T31 contract was for "all risk included fixed price contract". But when T31 contracted, it was said that the idea was abandoned.)

[donald_of_tokyo]

By the way, I think T31 as is has a good rationale.

T31 has a 57 mm gun, 12 CAMM, 3D radar, and a Merlin-capable hangar. It is exactly the ship everyone wanted when talking about up-arming River B2. (Exactly what was considered for Venator 90 like C3 class?). It is exactly the "all dancing patrol vessel" we all discussed here.

Can fight fast boat swarm, much better than any escorts in RN fleet. Can handle Hoiti-rebels simple SSM attack (CAMM). Can be at sea for long period. Perfect solution it is.

Simply because the hull is 1.5 times larger than required, and the mother-design ship (IH class) is so much well armed, T31 looks like not good. But, it is vice versa. T31 completely meats the requirement with vastly exceeding performance in its size (and therefore, its outlook).

By the way, I'm not sure how T32 will be arranged. Although RN do need a good patrol frigate, I really think 5 T31 is enough. No need for 10. This is why I am pushing "more T26 than new T32s".

[Caribbean]

I suspect that the T32 is intended to fill the C2 slot in the lineup. The T31 was clearly, at the outset, intended to be a C3 "for the modern age" - larger than originally envisaged, at around 3500-4000t and ~ 120m in length, but that simply accords with the change in thinking over the last twenty or more years - small ships do not survive as well larger ones, so all classes have grown in tonnage and dimensions. The budget was clearly a C3 budget as well.

Originally the C2 was supposed to be a cut-down version of the C1, but it's going to be very difficult to descope the £1.2b T26 sufficiently, I think. Removing the 127mm and its magazine and removing all silencing measures might cut 20% or so, but not much more. I think an upgraded T31 is more likely - starting from a £250m hull and introducing additional equipment as needed for the mission sounds like a safer bet

[Repulse]

It is exactly the ship everyone wanted when talking about up-arming River B2

Sorry Donald, the T31 is supposed to be a T23 replacement not a River class replacement, equally its not a Venator 90/MHPC ship. It is purely to make up the Frigate numbers.

An Avenger/ additional T26 mixture would have made sense, perhaps a T26 / Venator 90 more so, but that is now done.

If the RN was really going for a C3 corvette then it should have gone with the Avenger class, it didn’t and we are left wondering why the RN has ended up with a short lived class; I have better hopes for the T32.

[donald_of_tokyo]

It is exactly the ship everyone wanted when talking about up-arming River B2

Sorry Donald, the T31 is supposed to be a T23 replacement not a River class replacement, equally its not a Venator 90/MHPC ship. It is purely to make up the Frigate numbers.

Thanks. I also thought so, but looking at T31RFI, it was clear T31 is not a T23 replacement in its capability. Notably, the cost prepared for T31 was very cheap as a frigate. Historically, French escorts are a bit cheaper than UK counterpart. It all depends on what is included in the contract, but including everything, it was so. Then, French FDI is a £3.3B program for 5 hulls, while T31 was for £1.25B, originally. On contract, it became £2B. I think the simplicity (= lack of punch) of T31 just reflect its cheapness.

In short, I share your wish but the idea that "T31 is replacing T23GP in its capability" has gone in 2016.

Now, T31 is to replace the tasks T23GP are actually doing now.

Yes, T23GP can be "re-rolled" to fight real war in front-line, but T31 cannot. But, T31 can go with the back-end logistic flotilla, so it is acceptable if only 5 are to be built.

If the RN was really going for a C3 corvette then it should have gone with the Avenger class, it didn’t and we are left wondering why the RN has ended up with a short lived class; I have better hopes for the T32.

In view of patrol, I think T31/Arrowhead140 is far exceeding what can be done with Avenger. If similarly armed, I also think Avenger would not be so cheap, mainly because of requiring frigate-standard damage control. Re-designing River B2 OPV so intensively will cost a lot, as well. On UXV/boat handling, T31 is very poor at and Avenger will be no doubt better.

Just a speculation. But, if RN wants to have a frigate to replace T23GP (in capability) AND something like C3, the cheapest way (now) will be

• 1: build T32 like Avenger
  2: up-arm T31 to carry ~24 CAMM, 8 I-SSM, and a hull sonar, with enhanced CMS, and make it a real "T23GP replacement"

As T31 hull design is characterized by "easy to fit later" large internal volume (loosely packed), and apparently having large growth margin, up-arming T31 will be relatively easy. I speculate RN is "hoping" this way...

[Lord Jim]

I personally do not see the T-31 being up armed now the T-32 has been announced. Instead it will be the larger better armed member of the Royal Navy's force of Patrol Vessels even if the MoD and Government still keep describing it as a Warship, which it is but only by a very large stretch of one's imagination.

With hindsight, maybe the MoD would have done better and not order the T031, use the Rivers as they are now and use the money to accelerate the T-26 programme, encouraging BAE to build its "Frigate Factory", and then use the T-32 money to build additional T-26 or as I have already suggested a hybrid ASW/AAW platform, also called T-32 but based on the T-26 to fill the gap until the T-83 comes on line.

I get the feeling the T-31 was another Governmental knee jerk reaction to public and political outcry, this time over the shrinking fleet. If it has held its nerve, it could have made the case for a dip in numbers, but that the planned eight T-26 were sufficient to protect the UK Carrier Group and some of its other tasks, whilst some NATO commitments would have to temporarily be taken over by other Alliance members. Then in theory post 2030 the fleet would again reach 19 high end Escorts and then gradually surpass this number as the additional T-26 and or T-32 continue to come out of BAEs Factory.

But as I said that is hindsight, but I still think the T-32 should evolve form the T-26 and not the T-31.

[ArmChairCivvy]

that simply accords with the change in thinking over the last twenty or more years - small ships do not survive as well larger ones, so all classes have grown in tonnage and dimensions. The budget was clearly a C3 budget as well.

the T31 is supposed to be a T23 replacement not a River class replacement

T31 is not a T23 replacement in its capability

The size makes T31 an ideal global presence ship, and in that it will do better than the 'crammed' T23 GPs.

Historically, French escorts are a bit cheaper than UK counterpart

+

not be so cheap, mainly because of requiring frigate-standard damage control

Taking the Floreals (the French global presence fleet, now facing retirement just like our T23 GPs), the ya re heavily armed, crammed, can only be global ( 11 k nm!) because they have a fuel tank that runs the whole length of the hull, low down in it... and wait for it!

not be so cheap, mainly because of requiring frigate-standard damage control

+

T23GP can be "re-rolled" to fight real war in front-line, but T31 cannot

Must repeat here: the design that T31 is derived from has cleared all NATO stds in tests - with 'flying colours'
... and as you say below:

up-arming T31 will be relatively easy

whilst some NATO commitments would have to temporarily be taken over by other Alliance members

C'on, we have done that with P-8 gap, will repeat with AEW (Wedgetails) and as we skipped the NATO Ground Surveillance Initiative and pledged assets instead - well, we are retiring! those assets
- I think there is a limit to 'everything'

I still think the T-32 should evolve form the T-26

In trying to achieve a surface fleet mix with both numbers and capability in it; as @Caribbean said the -20% (max) price does not play well towards that goal?

[Dobbo]

On the discussions around the parallels between T26, T31, T32 and the old C1, C2 and C3 concepts, are we not forgetting the purpose of the lesser equipped warships?

In other words, the T31 is intended to offer a relatively cheap means of having an established presence in places like the Caribbean - so that the expensive and more complicated warships such as T26, T45 (in time T83) can focus their efforts on escorting the carrier strike and amphibious group(s) and patrolling in more dangerous and contested waters?

Surely this type of - we hope - efficiency compromise will mean that the 8x T26 (and hopefully 8x T83) will be properly equipped and not FFBNW.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Quite

T26, T45 (in time T83) can focus their efforts on escorting the carrier strike and amphibious group(s)

the parallels between T26, T31, T32 and the old C1, C2 and C3 concepts

Yes, I guess reordering the first list so that they match (?) with C1,2,3
Additionally, we should have the new guns (with large, automated mags) on T32s; not on T26s
- more is of course better, but I don't think we can afford umpteen of them

Is it that we have 3 of the new ones and c.20 of the older (installed, or stored)
... when will it be that we exceed 23 in escort numbers

Of course, what I am saying above is predicated on the assumption that T32s and LRGs will be paired (until other assets are added, as required). For context, the Mk. 45 5-inch gun fires an unguided round with a range of 21 miles.
- Each round costs between $1,600 and $2,200.

Whereas for the Excalibur GPS-guided artillery round BAE Systems has come up with a naval version
- can hit targets out to 26 miles, and
- Excalibur costs about $68,000 each

Those prices are 2016 prices (picked up by Popular Mechanics), but really what matters is the price ratio which will not be much changed by inflation. But even more so: if you have landed beach parties ( who can pinpoint the targets) then the effect from pinpoint accuracy, out to a longer range, can be well worth the 30x price

[Lord Jim]

Well as I said, I group the T-31 in with the Patrol force, be it large and with good range. It can be a useful "Presence" ship but only where it will be safe like the Caribbean or off the Isle of white, as long as the French fishermen do not get agitated that is By the way does anyone have a good list of the defensive/decoy systems that are to be installed and how do these compare to those on the T-23?

[ArmChairCivvy]

the Patrol force

It's not that long ago when the division of it into two distinctive squadrons was formalised. For home, there was the two-year reactivation plan/ budget of Rb1s
- would think those two years are up, and the first T31 a long way off (from entering service )

One can decipher something from where the Rb2s are sent to, and where the T23s soldier on 'on patrol duty'
- as for how the future deployments
- luckily we do what is needed and the old tautology about Standing Tasks - a list that had been inflated just in order to give credence to the Nineteen Number - does not appear in texts much. For clarity, I am not referring to Nato standing tasks, a subset of the list - and the ones that we used to skip first

[Repulse]

The future accepted wisdom looks to be based more on numbers that individual capability of platforms.

As with all things there is a balance, and the T26/T45 CSG escort mix is still relevant. What the question is what force goes around these to give volume but still provides the required range of low to high threat requirements across ASW, ASuW and AAW.

My view is that size/range matters less when increased forward basing is implemented and each craft is expected to have a shorter lifespan.

The RN needs a cost effective proven platform which can carry a range of weapons and kit, and invest more in automation to the point where the class can be optionally manned depending on its task. It also needs a ship that can be built by multiple shipyards in case of heightened threat or Scottish Independence.

That base class for me is the proven River Class.

[Tempest414]

If we just look at this from money point of view with type 31 as it stands coming in at 400 million per ship and type 26 coming in at 1.1 billion per ship then there is room for type 32 to come in at 600 million per ship . If this was to happen the question then becomes what can we add to type 31 or how much do we have to strip out of type 26 to get to that figure given by the time type 32 are started both BAE and Babcock would have built around 4 of there ships each. with this in mind I just don't see anymore type 26's

[Repulse]

To penny pinch on the T26 makes no sense at all - even with the talk of mass vs capability, the RN needs a credible escort force around it’s “big stick” CSGs. I agree though that 8 T26s is probably the limit, though hope in the end to get to the point of a common ASW/AAW platform based on the T26 hull regardless of the name and type labels.

[ArmChairCivvy]

type 31 as it stands coming in at 400 million per ship and type 26 coming in at 1.1 billion per ship then there is room for type 32 to come in at 600 million per ship . If this was to happen the question then becomes what can we add to type 31 or how much do we have to strip out of type 26 to get to that figure

You have phrased it well:
- up, with T31, has lots of potential
-down, with T26, does not

hope in the end to get to the point of a common ASW/AAW platform based on the T26 hull regardless of the name and type labels.

That is a definitive possibility. But first we have to get our ducks in a row with ABM - and consequently, with the types of silos we will standardise on. In the end, (larger) surface combatants are a golf bag, and you pack into it the most likely 'hitters' as you will have a rough idea of the 'golf links' you will need to tackle... well, the links are not the 'oppos' but I think the drift with this is clear