Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
You are missing the point! Forward basing reduces your flexibility still further. If you had, say 10 Frigates, they could be tasked to cover, say six locations (allowing for refits etc.). While on long(ish) Voyages to and from their designated areas of deployment, the Ships will also cover other areas of the Worlds Oceans and Seas, in defence of the National Interest.
Forward Basing of Ships IS A PEACETIME EFFICIENCY “MIRAGE”. The Royal Navy is supposed to be a deterrent to War and to be preparing to fight a War if necessary. If we end up with fewer Ships, that is a SERIOUS RESTRICTION ON OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OURSELVES.
You are correct to be concerned about the possibility of ships becoming prematurely worn out, but this is but one more consequence of WORKING TOO FEW SHIPS TOO HARD. Therein lies another possible EFFICIENCY “MIRAGE” …….. Keep the Ships in port, make Fewer Deployments etc. Would that result in them becoming less worn out? Very likely, but they may well become of no practical use.
I know the rationale of “Double Crewing”, but as a general rule it is an illusory benefit and the result of FAULTY THINKING.
In essence there are not enough ships, so why on earth would any sane person want to reduce them still further!
Ukraine has demonstrated if further proof were needed, that If we we became involved in a war we would need to fight WITH WHAT WE HAVE. There would be no time to build more ships, but some may wishfully think that the USA would provide us with a number of (Lend/Lease) Block I ABs.
Forward Basing of Ships IS A PEACETIME EFFICIENCY “MIRAGE”. The Royal Navy is supposed to be a deterrent to War and to be preparing to fight a War if necessary. If we end up with fewer Ships, that is a SERIOUS RESTRICTION ON OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OURSELVES.
You are correct to be concerned about the possibility of ships becoming prematurely worn out, but this is but one more consequence of WORKING TOO FEW SHIPS TOO HARD. Therein lies another possible EFFICIENCY “MIRAGE” …….. Keep the Ships in port, make Fewer Deployments etc. Would that result in them becoming less worn out? Very likely, but they may well become of no practical use.
I know the rationale of “Double Crewing”, but as a general rule it is an illusory benefit and the result of FAULTY THINKING.
In essence there are not enough ships, so why on earth would any sane person want to reduce them still further!
Ukraine has demonstrated if further proof were needed, that If we we became involved in a war we would need to fight WITH WHAT WE HAVE. There would be no time to build more ships, but some may wishfully think that the USA would provide us with a number of (Lend/Lease) Block I ABs.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Thanks. As Montrose is double crewed, and still another two T23 is manned, it means there are 180 x4 = 720 crew onboard GP Type-23s. Then, as the same calculation, RN can anyway double the activity of GP frigates.
Option-1: man all 5 T31, and still have almost 2 of them double crewed (I assume T31 crew to be 105-110 or so). This will result in almost doubling of activity of GP frigates, thanks to 66% increased "manned" hull number, and less maintenance load of T31 (simple and new).
Option-2: man all 5 T31. Remaining 195 crew may man 1-more T45 (or a T-26 and an OPV).
Option-3: Another idea will be to "x1.5 crew" at least 3, may be 4, of the T31 to increase their sea-going days. NOT as simple as an OPV, not sure of "x1.5 manning" will increase T31s sea-going days at lot (because ship itself needs maintenance), but will be good for promotion.
Option-1: man all 5 T31, and still have almost 2 of them double crewed (I assume T31 crew to be 105-110 or so). This will result in almost doubling of activity of GP frigates, thanks to 66% increased "manned" hull number, and less maintenance load of T31 (simple and new).
Option-2: man all 5 T31. Remaining 195 crew may man 1-more T45 (or a T-26 and an OPV).
Option-3: Another idea will be to "x1.5 crew" at least 3, may be 4, of the T31 to increase their sea-going days. NOT as simple as an OPV, not sure of "x1.5 manning" will increase T31s sea-going days at lot (because ship itself needs maintenance), but will be good for promotion.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Double manning is nothing bad. I agree it will be better to "swap two crew-teams of two ships", rather than "share the same hull with two crew-teams". But, if RN has a time to use ships traveling going back and forth, they can cut it and shift that resource to doing anything else, like, sending another ship to NATO standing fleet. If visiting Mediterranean ports is important, just do it.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑31 May 2022, 03:00 You are missing the point! Forward basing reduces your flexibility still further. If you had, say 10 Frigates, they could be tasked to cover, say six locations (allowing for refits etc.). While on long(ish) Voyages to and from their designated areas of deployment, the Ships will also cover other areas of the Worlds Oceans and Seas, in defence of the National Interest.
Forward Basing of Ships IS A PEACETIME EFFICIENCY “MIRAGE”. The Royal Navy is supposed to be a deterrent to War and to be preparing to fight a War if necessary. If we end up with fewer Ships, that is a SERIOUS RESTRICTION ON OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OURSELVES.
You are correct to be concerned about the possibility of ships becoming prematurely worn out, but this is but one more consequence of WORKING TOO FEW SHIPS TOO HARD. Therein lies another possible EFFICIENCY “MIRAGE” …….. Keep the Ships in port, make Fewer Deployments etc. Would that result in them becoming less worn out? Very likely, but they may well become of no practical use.
I know the rationale of “Double Crewing”, but as a general rule it is an illusory benefit and the result of FAULTY THINKING.
In essence there are not enough ships, so why on earth would any sane person want to reduce them still further!
Ukraine has demonstrated if further proof were needed, that If we we became involved in a war we would need to fight WITH WHAT WE HAVE. There would be no time to build more ships, but some may wishfully think that the USA would provide us with a number of (Lend/Lease) Block I ABs.
Scimitar54-san's concern is the overall reduction in ship number and man-power, I think everybody shares it. Just, how to handle the lack of money and man-power, is the whole point of discussion here. And, lack of money and man-power is clear and present danger. RN does not have enough crew to man their ships (see HMS Echo), and RN does not have enough money to equip themselves (lack of I-SSGW, delay of FSSS, slowly building T26, spending so long for T45 PIP and CAMM addition etc).
And, even though I share the concern of Scimitar54-san, I dare say RN is gradually increasing its activity in this 2 years (fact, simply reflecting very very low activity on late 2010s). I understand the trick under early 2023 decommissioning of Montrose (just replaced with Argyll). So, pure loss "on paper" is only HMS Monmouth, and it is no loss in "activity" sadly because of shortage in man-power.
PS Caution is, RN need to send crews to T26-hull1 and T31-hull1 (150 + 110 = ~ 260 crew) by 2025. So, starting from ~2024, RN will see reduction of nearly two "in service" escorts numbers. On 2025, T26-hull1 and T31-hull1 will be shortly delivered to RN, and start flying white ensign. Thus, "on paper" escorts numbers will see only a short gap.
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I do think that after the first three T-45 go through the PIP the last three should have the PIP and installation of Sea Ceptor combined to speed things up. Once these are returned to service the first three can go back one at a time to have Sea Ceptor installed.
- These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 7):
- donald_of_tokyo • ArmChairCivvy • wargame_insomniac • Scimitar54 • Caribbean • serge750 • Dahedd
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
https://imgur.com/a/AS5SQPi
Interesting and detailed info about The T23 and T45 by the RAND Corporation.
Interesting and detailed info about The T23 and T45 by the RAND Corporation.
-
- Member
- Posts: 335
- Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Submarine hunter planes needed
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/0 ... ramps-spy/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/0 ... ramps-spy/
Britain needs to expand its arsenal of submarine hunter planes by a third to combat Russian spy operations on our borders, senior RAF commanders have warned.
- These users liked the author TheLoneRanger for the post (total 4):
- donald_of_tokyo • wargame_insomniac • serge750 • Lord Jim
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Completely agree, but ASW is an integrated effort, along with 3-4 more MPAs, we need another 1-2 T26s, another 1-2 SSNs, and a fleet of unmanned system motherships along with a UAVs / XLUUVs and sea bed / satellite monitoring systems.
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Another 1-2 SSNs ? Certainly, but that means “Deployed”, so, if “another 1” in actual fact that would require 3 more, and if “another 2”, then up to 6 more would be required !
That is how undersized the SSN force is. We know what the obstacles to additional Warship acquisition are (and SSN in particular) but a way either through, or around those problems MUST be found.
That is how undersized the SSN force is. We know what the obstacles to additional Warship acquisition are (and SSN in particular) but a way either through, or around those problems MUST be found.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
But before building new ships or new SSN, we first need to crew the ones we have. I was quite surprised when RN early retired two Trafalgar Class on the same day last month. The fact that we can only crew FIVE SSN currently is a damning indictment on RN crew retention and recruitment, and it shows that we would struggle to crew any additional SSN built!!Scimitar54 wrote: ↑19 Jun 2022, 14:42 Another 1-2 SSNs ? Certainly, but that means “Deployed”, so, if “another 1” in actual fact that would require 3 more, and if “another 2”, then up to 6 more would be required !
That is how undersized the SSN force is. We know what the obstacles to additional Warship acquisition are (and SSN in particular) but a way either through, or around those problems MUST be found.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
If you need to build additional Warships, then it is without doubt that they will need to be crewed and maintained as well. If we have Warships in the current Fleet that cannot be crewed or maintained, that is a scandalous situation and shows (once again) that the 2010 SDR did reduce Naval personnel to a dangerously inadequate number !
A (minimum) increase of around 5% in personnel numbers is what is badly needed, but nearer 10% is probably the increase that is required.
A (minimum) increase of around 5% in personnel numbers is what is badly needed, but nearer 10% is probably the increase that is required.
- These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post (total 2):
- serge750 • wargame_insomniac
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Agreed but before we ca talk about building additional ships, our mot important priority is to fully crew the ones we currently have and stop retiring them early to save either crew for the the next ship or just to save annual running costs.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑19 Jun 2022, 16:48 If you need to build additional Warships, then it is without doubt that they will need to be crewed and maintained as well. If we have Warships in the current Fleet that cannot be crewed or maintained, that is a scandalous situation and shows (once again) that the 2010 SDR did reduce Naval personnel to a dangerously inadequate number !
A (minimum) increase of around 5% in personnel numbers is what is badly needed, but nearer 10% is probably the increase that is required.
However so long as that first priority of improving crew retention / recruitment is addressed soon, then by the time any of these potential additional ships / SSN's are actually built, then we should have sufficient crew for thm. And you are right that the RN does need to increase its numbers of escorts and SSN's as we switch from three decades of peace dividends (and the focus on BA / RAF instead of RN for peacekeeping missions) to peer warfare with UK need to emphasize ASW in North Atlantic.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Completely agree with the need to increase the number of trained crew. Retention though is about a number of things, training / travel opportunities, career progression and operational drumbeat are probably towards the top. These are exactly those that suffer when the number of ships are cut.
- These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
- wargame_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
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Another SSN will give 8 and the fighting chance of having one in the North Atlantic, another with the active CSG, plus one roaming able to surge and keep the enemy guessing.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑19 Jun 2022, 14:42 Another 1-2 SSNs ? Certainly, but that means “Deployed”, so, if “another 1” in actual fact that would require 3 more, and if “another 2”, then up to 6 more would be required !
That is how undersized the SSN force is. We know what the obstacles to additional Warship acquisition are (and SSN in particular) but a way either through, or around those problems MUST be found.
I would love more, but another 1-2 actually has a real impact IMO.
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Hardly any impact actually in terms of the number of SSNs that can be fielded in a particular location on a permanent basis. This is firstly, because the base number of SSN is so low and secondly the need for SSNs to be available for a number of taskings is so varied geographically and by mission function. We have NO WHERE NEAR “an adequate number of SSN” (or submarines of any description come to that). I do of course exclude CASD in this regard.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
We need to finish the Astutes ASAP, build the Dreadnoughts at pace and drop straight onto SSN(R). A disco drumbeat rather than a waltz.
- These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 3):
- wargame_insomniac • serge750 • Dobbo
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Solution: If one disco cannot meet the demand, then obviously two or more may be required!
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Are there any good clubs in Adelaide?Scimitar54 wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 00:51 Solution: If one disco cannot meet the demand, then obviously two or more may be required!
- These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
- Scimitar54
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Very likely ! However, if the pool of ‘clubbers is widened still further, then EVEN MORE “clubs” are almost certain to be required.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Hindley Street is not quite “The Gaza Strip” but it can get livelytomuk wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 06:17Are there any good clubs in Adelaide?Scimitar54 wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 00:51 Solution: If one disco cannot meet the demand, then obviously two or more may be required!
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
With RN escorts at this time operating with 200+ crew ( to keep at sea time up ) once the new ships come on line Type 31 with 110 to 120 crew and type 26 with 150wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑19 Jun 2022, 19:11Agreed but before we ca talk about building additional ships, our mot important priority is to fully crew the ones we currently have and stop retiring them early to save either crew for the the next ship or just to save annual running costs.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑19 Jun 2022, 16:48 If you need to build additional Warships, then it is without doubt that they will need to be crewed and maintained as well. If we have Warships in the current Fleet that cannot be crewed or maintained, that is a scandalous situation and shows (once again) that the 2010 SDR did reduce Naval personnel to a dangerously inadequate number !
A (minimum) increase of around 5% in personnel numbers is what is badly needed, but nearer 10% is probably the increase that is required.
However so long as that first priority of improving crew retention / recruitment is addressed soon, then by the time any of these potential additional ships / SSN's are actually built, then we should have sufficient crew for thm. And you are right that the RN does need to increase its numbers of escorts and SSN's as we switch from three decades of peace dividends (and the focus on BA / RAF instead of RN for peacekeeping missions) to peer warfare with UK need to emphasize ASW in North Atlantic.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Broadly true, but some comments:Tempest414 wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 10:25 With RN escorts at this time operating with 200+ crew ( to keep at sea time up ) once the new ships come on line Type 31 with 110 to 120 crew and type 26 with 150
- T23/T45's "200+ crew" includes "flight crew", and its core crew is somewhere around 190.
- T31's 110-120 and Type-26's 150, does not include "flight crew", to my understanding.
- "to keep at sea time up", do you mean "at sea time" of the crew? or of the ship?
RN these days is cutting land-based personnel to increase at-sea crew. Good promotion is also helping a little. In spite of it, RN is forced to put HMS Echo into extended readiness, because of lack of crew. This might be because
- lack is "skilled" crew is a big problem,
- and/or still not enough total number of crew
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- Oldrusty
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Yes I mean crew time at sea what we are seeing is 1 x T-23 double crewed and the rest of the at sea escorts carrying 190+ as you say this could mean that for 3 T-23's you get 5 T-31 crews it is not that simple but it could workdonald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 12:04Broadly true, but some comments:Tempest414 wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 10:25 With RN escorts at this time operating with 200+ crew ( to keep at sea time up ) once the new ships come on line Type 31 with 110 to 120 crew and type 26 with 150
- T23/T45's "200+ crew" includes "flight crew", and its core crew is somewhere around 190.
- T31's 110-120 and Type-26's 150, does not include "flight crew", to my understanding.
- "to keep at sea time up", do you mean "at sea time" of the crew? or of the ship?
RN these days is cutting land-based personnel to increase at-sea crew. Good promotion is also helping a little. In spite of it, RN is forced to put HMS Echo into extended readiness, because of lack of crew. This might be because
- lack is "skilled" crew is a big problem,
- and/or still not enough total number of crew
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Interesting "OPV", Vard 7 125 Next Gen OPV.
125m long, built to merchant ship standard (that is the Vard 7 sales point) but with "optimized naval design rules applied", with a hangar and dual side accessible mission bay (quite T26-like). It also adopts "PODS".
On paper, it must have been a very good candidate for T31. T31 in RFI was allowed to spec-out from military standard (if properly handled = "optimized naval design rules applied" will be a good statement), shall be 120+ m long, with a hanger, a gun, SAM FTR, SSM FTR, and carrying 4 RHIBs (At last, T31 is going to carry only 3 RHIBs). All fits well with Vard 7 125 NGOPV.
I though, this must have been a good Babcock-design candidate if it was designed 3 years ago.
Could this ship be a good candidate for T32? Any of these 115/125m class OPVs have ever built. So, if Babcock buys this design, they will do all the detailed design, and hence will be able to propose it to the world market. Many of the world's smallish navy cannot afford an expensive ship with full-level of naval design rules.
125m long, built to merchant ship standard (that is the Vard 7 sales point) but with "optimized naval design rules applied", with a hangar and dual side accessible mission bay (quite T26-like). It also adopts "PODS".
On paper, it must have been a very good candidate for T31. T31 in RFI was allowed to spec-out from military standard (if properly handled = "optimized naval design rules applied" will be a good statement), shall be 120+ m long, with a hanger, a gun, SAM FTR, SSM FTR, and carrying 4 RHIBs (At last, T31 is going to carry only 3 RHIBs). All fits well with Vard 7 125 NGOPV.
I though, this must have been a good Babcock-design candidate if it was designed 3 years ago.
Could this ship be a good candidate for T32? Any of these 115/125m class OPVs have ever built. So, if Babcock buys this design, they will do all the detailed design, and hence will be able to propose it to the world market. Many of the world's smallish navy cannot afford an expensive ship with full-level of naval design rules.
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- Jensy
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Possibly, but it depends on the requirement as always.
Whilst the CDS and others continue to state that the defence review direction remains as is, I can’t help but see some adjustment, and the T32 IMO is a good place to start, as the last thing the RN needs is another frigate class.
It would be better to add another T26 to boost high end war fighting capabilities and to allow the class to act as the off-board system mothership being touted as the role for the T32.
I do think is then missing is a smaller flexible Littoral off-board system mothership that can operate close to shore performing coastal MCM, Survey, ASW, Patrol and Amphibious support ops.
- These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
- wargame_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
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
With respect Donald it's not a design. It's some marketing material.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 16:58 Interesting "OPV", Vard 7 125 Next Gen OPV.
So, if Babcock buys this design, they will do all the detailed design, and hence will be able to propose it to the world market. Many of the world's smallish navy cannot afford an expensive ship with full-level of naval design rules.
As you've intimated you'll need a couple of years and many millions in investment if you want to turn it into something you could use to build a ship.
That's one of the reasons Arrowhead won the T31 gig. It was based very closely on something that was actually in the water.