Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jonas »

@ marktigger

Perhaps some people need to cast their minds back to 1982. Without the RFA and Civilian ships taken up from trade (STUFT) the Falklands campaign could not have taken place. Never mind being brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

In fact Cunard played a large part in that campaign. So before calling others posts 'garbage' you should have actually thought about what you wrote.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

shark bait wrote:there are many times where a civilian produce can be valuable to the military
Indeed there are. That's what STUFT is for. I guess that the debate should be more about whether we need to build grey-painted versions of civilian designs, either because the number of suitable civilian vessels is diminishing, or in recognition of the fact that higher survivability and damage control standards really are necessary in this day and age. The Bays are a classic example - they are effectively a navalised ropax ferry and have proved to be one of the most useful designs that we operate.
To bring this back into the context of future escorts, should we be looking at civilian-based designs that also incorporate a far greater capability to defend themselves? CAMM and Phalanx would seem to make this relatively easy for air defence - the sticking point would seem to be defence against submarine attack, as SB and others have said, since this appears to need fundamental, designed-in capabilities that would be very expensive to implement on every ship. Which leads right back to the discussion about T31 and ASW capabilities. It would seem a very good idea to design-in a future upgrade path that would allow the T31 to be rapidly and easily reconfigured in to a dedicated ASW asset (or even, for that matter, an air-defence variant, if we are serious about exporting it. With CAMM it's halfway there already)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

Repulse wrote:@MarkTigger: Why is a RFA Sea Basing concept garbage?! If you are such a knowledgeable person please pray tell me how the current RN structure would work with an amphibious landing where carrier based air superiority is needed and there was a significant sub threat?

very simple answere the following question:

Where are we likely to be attempting to do an amphibious landing where there is a significant Viable submarine threat and air threat combined where we are operating alone?


yeap the navy sucks at present due to Ego projects and abymsal political and military management of the navy. Which needs rectifying.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

jonas wrote:@ marktigger

Perhaps some people need to cast their minds back to 1982. Without the RFA and Civilian ships taken up from trade (STUFT) the Falklands campaign could not have taken place. Never mind being brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

In fact Cunard played a large part in that campaign. So before calling others posts 'garbage' you should have actually thought about what you wrote.
yes they did but an amphibious warfare vessel has a hell of allot of other things on board than just landing craft and accomodation for troop. yes the merchant fleet provided a significan ammout of "Lift" capability but i didn't see to much C2 being carried out from them? there are significant disadvantages to using mercahnt vessels as Atlantic convoyer demonstrated. She was big enough to survive the impact of the exocet but didn't have the infrastructure to contain nor properly fight the fires caused. Imagine if Norland, Cancerra or QE2 had been hit at least fearless or intrepid would have had a fighting chance. Sir Galahad was one of those in betweens and that was carnage! Also look at things like the loss of the herald of free enterprise and the estonia ferry fire.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Courtesy of The Other Nick on TD:

http://www.cohortplc.com/media/pdf/Coho ... ebsite.pdf

Does this suggest that the 2050's won't be going into the T31's

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

Caribbean wrote:
shark bait wrote:there are many times where a civilian produce can be valuable to the military
Indeed there are. That's what STUFT is for. I guess that the debate should be more about whether we need to build grey-painted versions of civilian designs, either because the number of suitable civilian vessels is diminishing, or in recognition of the fact that higher survivability and damage control standards really are necessary in this day and age. The Bays are a classic example - they are effectively a navalised ropax ferry and have proved to be one of the most useful designs that we operate.
To bring this back into the context of future escorts, should we be looking at civilian-based designs that also incorporate a far greater capability to defend themselves? CAMM and Phalanx would seem to make this relatively easy for air defence - the sticking point would seem to be defence against submarine attack, as SB and others have said, since this appears to need fundamental, designed-in capabilities that would be very expensive to implement on every ship. Which leads right back to the discussion about T31 and ASW capabilities. It would seem a very good idea to design-in a future upgrade path that would allow the T31 to be rapidly and easily reconfigured in to a dedicated ASW asset (or even, for that matter, an air-defence variant, if we are serious about exporting it. With CAMM it's halfway there already)

correct there is fundemental things need designing in like Damage control, enhanced firefighting, Ocean and i think Bulwark and Albion has some of its passages designed for troops carrying bergans. Something not designed into many merchant vessels. then add in all the extra infrasturcture you need to support embarked troops for long periods like desalinators, kitchens stores (including proper magazines), space to eat, train etc and the vessel starts to become more complex. then start to add in C3I systems, EW, before you even get to missiles and CIWS an the command and control the ship needs. then the space with all its restrictions to operate helicopters. As we have realised its easier to offload over an artifical beach than out the side doors of a ferry hence the Bay class has a dock. But Amphibious vessels are allot more complex and its probably cheaper to design from keel up than take an existing civilian vessel and bodge it into the role.
But you also cannot take a ro ro ship strap some CAMM and helicopters on it with a small gun and call it a frigate either.

It might be even less expensive if we stopped reinventing the wheel and bought and modified existing designs like we did with the Bays!

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

dmereifield wrote:Courtesy of The Other Nick on TD:

http://www.cohortplc.com/media/pdf/Coho ... ebsite.pdf

Does this suggest that the 2050's won't be going into the T31's
how many are fitted to type 23?
are they going to be salvaged for type 26? if all 13 have them and a further 8 are being pruchased could it be a bigger program and some spares?

or could it be its easier to buy new for the 26 program and they will be started first?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote: the estonia ferry fire
What was that? The one I know was about the front being ripped open by the force of the waves and the rest became history (except for those 118 that were lifted from the sea in very extreme conditions by the Super Pumas - quite different fro the Pumas as we know them for air assault).
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

marktigger wrote:Where are we likely to be attempting to do an amphibious landing where there is a significant Viable submarine threat and air threat combined where we are operating alone?
The world is changing, it is quite possible that the next US president will be even less eager to fight other countries their wars for them. Europe is going into a hole and will be focused on land defence against the threat from the East.

Who would have thought that the Falklands would happen. Whilst the Argies managed to hit home air attack they could have equally done it with their subs.
”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
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

Where are we likely to be attempting to do an amphibious landing where there is a significant Viable submarine threat and air threat combined where we are operating alone?
The real question is how much more the country can use arguments like this and then pretend that it has still got a military and a capability to do something independently.
You are well advanced on the way to becoming a virtual US state.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

Repulse wrote:
marktigger wrote:Where are we likely to be attempting to do an amphibious landing where there is a significant Viable submarine threat and air threat combined where we are operating alone?
The world is changing, it is quite possible that the next US president will be even less eager to fight other countries their wars for them. Europe is going into a hole and will be focused on land defence against the threat from the East.

Who would have thought that the Falklands would happen. Whilst the Argies managed to hit home air attack they could have equally done it with their subs.
yes they could have but the didn't and the SSK(N)'s made a big point when they sank belgrano they also sent the message to the argentine submarine force.

there needs to be a re-evaluation of what we are spending and what we are spending it on.

and what missions we take on.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

Gabriele wrote:
Where are we likely to be attempting to do an amphibious landing where there is a significant Viable submarine threat and air threat combined where we are operating alone?
The real question is how much more the country can use arguments like this and then pretend that it has still got a military and a capability to do something independently.
You are well advanced on the way to becoming a virtual US state.
correct just like italy eh who have even less capability.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

marktigger wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Where are we likely to be attempting to do an amphibious landing where there is a significant Viable submarine threat and air threat combined where we are operating alone?
The real question is how much more the country can use arguments like this and then pretend that it has still got a military and a capability to do something independently.
You are well advanced on the way to becoming a virtual US state.
correct just like italy eh who have even less capability.
But Italy has no delusions of still being the world power. ;)
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

abc123 wrote:
marktigger wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Where are we likely to be attempting to do an amphibious landing where there is a significant Viable submarine threat and air threat combined where we are operating alone?
The real question is how much more the country can use arguments like this and then pretend that it has still got a military and a capability to do something independently.
You are well advanced on the way to becoming a virtual US state.
correct just like italy eh who have even less capability.
But Italy has no delusions of still being the world power. ;)

And they are more than happy to go for a free ride.....nw it looks like US may loose interest in Europe of course it'll be the Germans who'll pay to protect them

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jimthelad »

Reviewed the Venator 110 specs on BMT. There is a stern ramp for RHIB's so it might be possible to retrofit CAPTAS -1. I know it is not a subhunter like T26 but a multistatic hull sonar and helo is better than nothing.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

jimthelad wrote:Reviewed the Venator 110 specs on BMT. There is a stern ramp for RHIB's so it might be possible to retrofit CAPTAS -1. I know it is not a subhunter like T26 but a multistatic hull sonar and helo is better than nothing.
If you do a little more digging, BMT released a parallel document detailing the mission profile of the Venator design as well as providing a list of the various modular systems that could be installed on the ship. A TASS is specifically mentioned as one possibility.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

marktigger wrote:
abc123 wrote:
marktigger wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Where are we likely to be attempting to do an amphibious landing where there is a significant Viable submarine threat and air threat combined where we are operating alone?
The real question is how much more the country can use arguments like this and then pretend that it has still got a military and a capability to do something independently.
You are well advanced on the way to becoming a virtual US state.
correct just like italy eh who have even less capability.
But Italy has no delusions of still being the world power. ;)

And they are more than happy to go for a free ride.....nw it looks like US may loose interest in Europe of course it'll be the Germans who'll pay to protect them

While the UK doesen't free rides on US budget/support at all...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:
jimthelad wrote:Reviewed the Venator 110 specs on BMT. There is a stern ramp for RHIB's so it might be possible to retrofit CAPTAS -1. I know it is not a subhunter like T26 but a multistatic hull sonar and helo is better than nothing.
If you do a little more digging, BMT released a parallel document detailing the mission profile of the Venator design as well as providing a list of the various modular systems that could be installed on the ship. A TASS is specifically mentioned as one possibility.
Please share if you have it, there are so many iterations of spec/design around

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

correct just like italy eh who have even less capability.
OT begins

Less capability overall, yes, absolutely.
Yet, with half the budget, you'd think the difference would be huge in the UK's favor. But it is not.
And there is a crucial difference: Italy has kept a core capability in most areas and has actually been working hard to try and fill some of the gaps even as budgets shrunk. For example, the air force is about to put into service AEW aircraft, closing one of the big gaps it had. It took many years, but it eventually got there.
On the contrary, the UK has been dismantling its capabilities at an amazing rate, filling its sheet with zeroes that require someone else's filling. Differently from Italy, it has no imagery / intelligence satellites of its own. No SEAD. No carrier air for a few more years. No ground based air defence beyond SHORAD. Soon no dedicate LPH / LHD. The British Army is about to drop beneath the numbers of the italian army in all areas. You have tankers that cannot refuel some of the most important strategic aircraft in the fleet. Etcetera.

As for "free riding", you will find that Italy has always been involved. It had smaller roles in Iraq and Afghanistan of course, but on the other hand it took the lead in Lebanon in 2008. It gave a sizeable contribute in Libya in 2011; and now, while it does not bomb ISIS yet, it guards the Mosul dam, contributes a CSAR group, is deploying a field hospital and related protection force in Misrata, it flies recce and AAR missions.
Not quite "free riding" from a country with less GDP, half the defence budget, a struggling economy and no UNSC seat. Should we do more? Absolutely. But our armed forces have been facing the cuts with, at least, a bit of common sense in their plans.

Also, we get swarmed over on Europe's behalf by thousands upon thousands of migrants everyday. Including the thousands the Royal Navy ships have "rescued" and then helpfully dumped in Sicily.

END OT
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

jimthelad wrote:Reviewed the Venator 110 specs on BMT. There is a stern ramp for RHIB's so it might be possible to retrofit CAPTAS -1. I know it is not a subhunter like T26 but a multistatic hull sonar and helo is better than nothing.
I've been saying this for a long time. Fitted with a multifunction towed array system, a 2nd hand hull sonar and a Merlin they could become a capable ASW light frigate to work along side the T26.
Repulse wrote:One craft you forgot as payload was: [Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle image]
Yes, a self deploying Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is a nice concept. Could it form the basis of a different amphibious assault group where personnel self deploy in armour driven straight off the back of a militarised ROPAX ferry?
Caribbean wrote:Indeed there are. That's what STUFT is for. I guess that the debate should be more about whether we need to build grey-painted versions of civilian designs, either because the number of suitable civilian vessels is diminishing, or in recognition of the fact that higher survivability and damage control standards really are necessary in this day and age. The Bays are a classic example - they are effectively a navalised ropax ferry and have proved to be one of the most useful designs that we operate.
I don't see why they are only useful as STUFT. Civilian designs that uprated slightly would still be valuable as full time military assets, just like A330's and 737's.

We're moving into time where the payloads are way more important than the platform, so it makes sense to save resources on the platform, and invest in payloads that can have a far greater range, speed and survivability than a frigate.

I believe there is a lot to gain be reusing and uprating existing civilian designs, its exactly what the RAF do, but applied to the Navy. They save resources by using civilian designs where possible, and focus on bespoke fast jets, would a similar approach work for the RN?

I think the only naval platform that needs to be of a complex bespoke design are ASW frigates, because of noise requirements, and aircraft carriers, because those don't exist in the civilian world. Everything else could be provided by reusing existing designs.

We have to pick what capabilities we want to focus on delivering, which should be air power and submarines. Deliver those capabilities with bespoke high end capabilities, and where possible reuse existing civilian and military designs to support those capabilities.

And examples of these already exist;
for ballistic missile defence.....
Image
for amphibious assault.....
Image
for patrols and intratheater transport....
Image

Reuse is clearly possible, then invest the savings in a few bespoke high end capabilities, like subs and F35's.
@LandSharkUK

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

dmereifield wrote: Please share if you have it, there are so many iterations of spec/design around
If refers to an older design specification of the Venator 110 (denoted by the reference to only a 76mm main calibre gun instead of the 127mm that is now more commonly presented) but should, theoretically, still be relevant given that little, other than the mission fit, has changed on the design in the interim:

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6097931/B ... r-2013.pdf

I believe it had already been posted by someone else a while back on the T31 thread, and i also raised attention to it not long after the 2015 SDSR was published.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jonas »

marktigger wrote:
abc123 wrote:
marktigger wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Where are we likely to be attempting to do an amphibious landing where there is a significant Viable submarine threat and air threat combined where we are operating alone?
The real question is how much more the country can use arguments like this and then pretend that it has still got a military and a capability to do something independently.
You are well advanced on the way to becoming a virtual US state.
correct just like italy eh who have even less capability.
But Italy has no delusions of still being the world power. ;)

And they are more than happy to go for a free ride.....nw it looks like US may loose interest in Europe of course it'll be the Germans who'll pay to protect them
You might like to take a look at the current and projected Italian building programme. At least they seem to be able to take decisions and get on with the job. When a country such as ours has to call in help from other countries to look for Russian submarines, operating in our sphere of influence. Has to beg another country to help man our ships, then it's rather hypocritical to accuse another country of going for a free ride.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:
dmereifield wrote: Please share if you have it, there are so many iterations of spec/design around
If refers to an older design specification of the Venator 110 (denoted by the reference to only a 76mm main calibre gun instead of the 127mm that is now more commonly presented) but should, theoretically, still be relevant given that little, other than the mission fit, has changed on the design in the interim:

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6097931/B ... r-2013.pdf

I believe it had already been posted by someone else a while back on the T31 thread, and i also raised attention to it not long after the 2015 SDSR was published.
Thanks. I look forward to seeing the weapon specs for the Cutlass and Avenger in due course (I don't think there are any details on these yet?). If the T31 is going to be low risk (I.e. Cheap) and quick to bring into service (i.e. Start building before, or concomitantly with, the T26) then a design based on ships already in service seems like the more obvious choice. Though people on here with more knowledge than me seem to think the 110 would be the better option.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

jonas wrote:[

You might like to take a look at the current and projected Italian building programme. At least they seem to be able to take decisions and get on with the job. When a country such as ours has to call in help from other countries to look for Russian submarines, operating in our sphere of influence. Has to beg another country to help man our ships, then it's rather hypocritical to accuse another country of going for a free ride.

Due to a serious miscalculation about the future of warfare and matching capabilities by MOD, Treasury , FCO and Ministers and in terms of accountability there hasn't been any Chiefs of Navy and RAF should have been sacked over that along with the minister of state.
There have been very loud voices saying that we should have stayed focussed on high end war fighting and not re focused our armed forces on COIN.
Definitly money should have been put into an MPA long before we even expressed interest in acquiring Predator or any of the other drone systems.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:There have been very loud voices saying that we should have stayed focussed on high end war fighting and not re focused our armed forces on COIN.
Since general Wall's tenure I can't remember anyone who has differed.
- however, the money had been spent, and it wil take a while to get anything else
- just tally up under 600 SVs, 300-ish MIVs, under 300 Warrior IFVs (much of the total in future deliveries) and you pretty much get everything usable that has been/ will have been procured for use in a hot war over a quarter of a century!
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)

Post Reply