Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Bring Deeps
Donator
Posts: 217
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Bring Deeps »

The Government should consider speeding up current build programs as that would be the simplest, if not necessarily the cheapest way of improving RN capabilities and ship numbers.

Of course BAE and Babcock would see this as an opportunity to make extra profit and a way of plugging the areas where they may have underpriced fixed price contracts already in place. Also, I doubt their businesses are as efficient and scalable as they would be in a more competitive industry.

In terms of the undersea threat we should consider the reality that it will be impossible to prevent all damage and think about having resource in place to repair that damage. Although a largely commercial activity thinking about how that requirement would work in a conflict situation might be worthwhile planning.

Russia's missiles, although used in a barbaric way in Ukraine and now with depleted stocks, are also a proven threat so the RN's stance on AAW and ABM needs to be robust.

Let's not overplay the unmanned platform card. Clearly useful in specified roles but limited and largely undefended compared to the manned equivalent.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 20:20
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 13:01
Poiuytrewq wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 10:13 The idea that the UK is going to produce a class of Frigates without a hull mounted sonar or a tail is now completely absurd.
Why?
I would argue that GP Frigates without sonar aren’t very general purpose.
Actually, I understand your point. But, I shall point out two things.

1: Adding a hull sonar to T31 will not make it "an ASW" escort. I think all agrees here. As modern SSK/SSN is so quiet, all "non-ASW specialist hull sonar mounted frigates" are significantly inferior (a "sitting duck" for SSK/SSNs). Not saying useless, because the only merit of SSK/SSN is being hidden. A frigate with a hull sonar can detect SSK/SSNs within 10-15 km, while be detected by the SSK/SSN from much far away. But, to be hidden, SSK/SSN shall hide themselves from their enemy. Sinking an escort does not solve the issue, because there are in many cases ASW support from other assets, air-support, escorts, and enemy subs. As such, a simple escort can "control" the 10-15 km area, by risking herself.

In short, adding a hull sonar on T31 has some meaning, but not much. ARCIMS SEASENSE and/or SeaGuardiang ASW UAV will be much more a nightmare for enemy sub.

2: A GP frigate in RN standard is a Sloop, not a multi-purpose frigate. So, saying "first and foremost the T31s need to be credible GP Frigates." may not be a good word. For me, even without a sonar, T31 is great as a sloop (= GP frigate). For me, better saying is, can RN afford the T31 to be a sloop, or shall RN make it a good 2nd-tier escort?
The T31 concept was conceived when the global security picture was much more stable and predictable than it is today. What was acceptable then is not acceptable now.
Understandable point, but as I do NOT think T31 shall counter Russia, I am mot sure if up-arming T31 is the right solution now.
Given this deterioration in the short, medium and long term global security picture it is time for the T31s weapons and sensor fit-out to be completely reassessed.
Totally agree, but not only for T31. Much much more important is more ammo, even more ammo, and much more ammo. What follows are E-7 numbers, P-8A numbers, T45 capability, T26 radar-upgrade and armaments, more T26s, CVF self defense upgrade, more F35Bs, more UAVs, more USVs, and Army and AirForce. T31 is just one of them, for me.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 10:38 To make the point in a different way, if the RN (in a lead role within NATO) wanted to ensure dominance of the North Atlantic (inc Artic) above and below the surface what fleet composition is required?
Increase the ammo stock by a factor of four. Buy, 5 more T26 (replacing T32 :D ), 3 or 5 more P-8, and 3 more E-7s. In addition, buy 9 ARCIMS SEASENSE ASW system for near shore ASW, 9 SeaGuardian ASW-UAV for off-shore ASW. Of course, add BMD and anti-hyper-sonic capability on all T45s.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Repulse

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

If you had considered what you have just written, you would have realised that it would have to have been the other way round. Or do you think that it is smart to make the “ Manned Vessel” the target?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 10:47 With off board systems and multi statics the age of the specialist manned ship is coming to an end. It will no longer need to be the ultra quiet passive receiver, it will more likely be the active pinger with off board systems being the silent receiver.
That day is not today though, whilst I agree the technology will mature of the next 10-20 years, having an “off board system” escort/mothership that is capable to operate in a high threat environment will still be needed IMO.

The T31 is not the platform you would design for this role, for me it’s either a MROSS type ship or it’s a T26 which is in a different league with its mission bay and capabilities.

The T31 was a global “colonial style” warship where it could wave the flag and be safe as it was still more advanced than what the locals have. Let’s kill that mentality now - the RN will be focused on protecting its backyard plus the ability to deploy small but top-tier task groups and with low level global presence designed for training, presence and HADR.
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 12:03 1: Adding a hull sonar to T31 will not make it "an ASW" escort. I think all agrees here.
Yes I agree. However an asset can be a credible deterrent long before the shooting starts.

Mass is in many instances as or more important than cutting edge capability and RN desperately needs more mass.
2: A GP frigate in RN standard is a Sloop, not a multi-purpose frigate.
Pointless arguing over names and designations that are constantly changing as technology evolves but one question, how many classes of Frigate has RN introduced since WW2 without a hull mounted sonar. Why now?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 10:38 To make the point in a different way, if the RN (in a lead role within NATO) wanted to ensure dominance of the North Atlantic (inc Artic) above and below the surface what fleet composition is required?
Specifically for ASW, would be a mix of ASW specialist Frigates plus helicopters, P8 aircraft, SSN and over time UAV dropping sonar bouys and XLUUV.

For the wider task of also dealing with Russian ships and aircraft (especially in the High North) would obviously need T45 forr AAW and T23 / T26 / T45 all armed with Anti Ship Missiles. In the short term this could be NSM but in the long term hopefully be FC/ASW.

Another thing to consider is the poor recent escort availability and lack of RN crew. With T45's power issues and T23's undergoing LIFEX, the RN lacked escorts at sea. Now we are in a position that Monmouth needed to be decommissioned to crew T23 coming out of LIFEX (Somerset IIRC) and Montrose being decommissioned early this year to crew the next T23 finishing LIFEX.

The point is that IF the RN improves crew recruitment / retention over the next year or so, then as T45's come out of PIP and T23's come out of LIFEX (and then in a fepw years replaced by T26 on hopefully one for one basis), then RN should have most of 6*T45 and 8*T23 ASW / T26 available for service in North Atlantic / GIUK / High North.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 13:06... Pointless arguing over names and designations that are constantly changing as technology evolves but one question, how many classes of Frigate has RN introduced since WW2 without a hull mounted sonar.
Zero.
Why now?
Because SSK/SSN is even more quiet, and USV/UUV-based ASW is coming soon.

Every single report on using low-frequency active-passive towed array sonar systems says "world changing, order of magnitude better" capability than ASW using only the hull sonars. In other words, "escort with only hull sonars" are so desparately inefficient in ASW. Actually, banning hull-sonar (just having mine-avoidance ones) and adopting low-frequency active-passive towed array sonar systems is the new trend. US Constellation class and Japanese FFM Mogami class.

As for T31:
1: It was originally much more a super Floreal-class, super Holland-class, super BAM-class, so not having a hull sonar is not a big surprise. At least, when I read the T31 RFI, I had this impression. It was a super heavy sloop, not an escort.

2: On the other hand, adding a sonar to T31 will not cost deadly, as you stated. Actually, how about Atlas LFAPS low-frequency active-passive towed array sonar? Iver Huiltveldt is using Atlas hull sonar, integrated into TACTICOS CMS, and adding LFAPS is easy. (Although a bit off-topic, ARCIMS USV added with FLAPS (and datalink) is branded as SEASENSE ASW. There could be a good commonality there. )

3: Another possibility is to go with CAPTAS4-CI, following the French FDI route = a bit noisy hull (just meeting NATO ASW standard) with big sonar. In this case, the sonar system has a commonality with T23/T26.

So we have typically 3 options; Option-1 = go without any sonar and focus on global patrol sloop tasks, rather put resources on improving other ASW assets. Option-2 = go with ATLAS sonar family. Option-3 = go with Thales sonar family. Option-2/3 will "rob" resources from improving other ASW assets, but will improve T31's ASW capability.

I think ALL 3 option are viable. Just a matter of choice.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 13:06
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 12:03 1: Adding a hull sonar to T31 will not make it "an ASW" escort. I think all agrees here.
Yes I agree. However an asset can be a credible deterrent long before the shooting starts.

Mass is in many instances as or more important than cutting edge capability and RN desperately needs more mass.
But the problem is crew... That is the reason we are talking about improving existing assets.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2785
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

SW1 wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 10:47 With off board systems and multi statics the age of the specialist manned ship is coming to an end. It will no longer need to be the ultra quiet passive receiver, it will more likely be the active pinger with off board systems being the silent receiver.
I would have thought the opposite, as the pinger would be easier to locate
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Caribbean wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 14:26
SW1 wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 10:47 With off board systems and multi statics the age of the specialist manned ship is coming to an end. It will no longer need to be the ultra quiet passive receiver, it will more likely be the active pinger with off board systems being the silent receiver.
I would have thought the opposite, as the pinger would be easier to locate
I agree to Caribbean-san. Off board pinger, off board receiver, and silent manned receiver with complex multi-static analysis system, is more reasonable. Ocean on surface is noisy. Quiet escort can hide within that noise.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 13:01
SW1 wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 10:47 With off board systems and multi statics the age of the specialist manned ship is coming to an end. It will no longer need to be the ultra quiet passive receiver, it will more likely be the active pinger with off board systems being the silent receiver.
That day is not today though, whilst I agree the technology will mature of the next 10-20 years, having an “off board system” escort/mothership that is capable to operate in a high threat environment will still be needed IMO.

The T31 is not the platform you would design for this role, for me it’s either a MROSS type ship or it’s a T26 which is in a different league with its mission bay and capabilities.

The T31 was a global “colonial style” warship where it could wave the flag and be safe as it was still more advanced than what the locals have. Let’s kill that mentality now - the RN will be focused on protecting its backyard plus the ability to deploy small but top-tier task groups and with low level global presence designed for training, presence and HADR.

Well maybe not today but none of the ships your discussing are about today either, type 26 is years away and we have no idea if it it will work, the current ships hardly fills us with confidence it will as advertised.

Anyway some reading on some exercises that have taken place and developments from liquid robotics and the rest

https://idstch.com/military/navy/multis ... e-warfare/

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Caribbean wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 14:26
SW1 wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 10:47 With off board systems and multi statics the age of the specialist manned ship is coming to an end. It will no longer need to be the ultra quiet passive receiver, it will more likely be the active pinger with off board systems being the silent receiver.
I would have thought the opposite, as the pinger would be easier to locate
Possibly but then task groups are noisey and with satellite imagery now available I would think you must assume the sub know where u are if your on the surface or at least will have a rough idea.

Maybe Better to scatter passive nodes over a wide area and have them listen and use the power of a surface ship ping to search over a long distance.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 13:53
Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 13:06... Pointless arguing over names and designations that are constantly changing as technology evolves but one question, how many classes of Frigate has RN introduced since WW2 without a hull mounted sonar.
Zero.
Why now?
Because SSK/SSN is even more quiet, and USV/UUV-based ASW is coming soon.

Every single report on using low-frequency active-passive towed array sonar systems says "world changing, order of magnitude better" capability than ASW using only the hull sonars. In other words, "escort with only hull sonars" are so desparately inefficient in ASW. Actually, banning hull-sonar (just having mine-avoidance ones) and adopting low-frequency active-passive towed array sonar systems is the new trend. US Constellation class and Japanese FFM Mogami class.

As for T31:
1: It was originally much more a super Floreal-class, super Holland-class, super BAM-class, so not having a hull sonar is not a big surprise. At least, when I read the T31 RFI, I had this impression. It was a super heavy sloop, not an escort.

2: On the other hand, adding a sonar to T31 will not cost deadly, as you stated. Actually, how about Atlas LFAPS low-frequency active-passive towed array sonar? Iver Huiltveldt is using Atlas hull sonar, integrated into TACTICOS CMS, and adding LFAPS is easy. (Although a bit off-topic, ARCIMS USV added with FLAPS (and datalink) is branded as SEASENSE ASW. There could be a good commonality there. )

3: Another possibility is to go with CAPTAS4-CI, following the French FDI route = a bit noisy hull (just meeting NATO ASW standard) with big sonar. In this case, the sonar system has a commonality with T23/T26.

So we have typically 3 options; Option-1 = go without any sonar and focus on global patrol sloop tasks, rather put resources on improving other ASW assets. Option-2 = go with ATLAS sonar family. Option-3 = go with Thales sonar family. Option-2/3 will "rob" resources from improving other ASW assets, but will improve T31's ASW capability.

I think ALL 3 option are viable. Just a matter of choice.
I have mentioned before that I believe that it was wrong choice to build the T31 at their existing size with their current weaponry and systems. EITHER they should have been built at that size but with upgraded weapons and sensors (including radar and sonar) and be proper frigates. OR they should have been smaller and cheaper, with existing weaponry and systems and classified as Patrol Frigate or Light Frigate or Sloop etc.

An updated version of the French Floréal class light "surveillance frigates" is exactly what I was thinking of, similarly to patrol Overseas Territories and assist in allied patrols of Global shipping lanes, especially anti-piracy operations e.g. Persian Gulf / Gulf of Oman etc. Probably at around 105-110 metres in length with a decent mission bay/hangar to initially be able to operate helicopters and RI boats, but eventually to operate a mix of USV/USuV/UAV. Maybe a strectched River B2 might have worked well.

But given that we are where we are, with T31 already ordered on a fixed price contract, the priority needs to be the best out of them. Whilst some of the 5 ships will be used in the Project Kipion type role and maybe one ship reinforcing the two River B2's in the Pacific, other T31's will be used for tasks such as FRE, or protecting LRG(S) when that becomes operational, possibly even being an extra esort for the CSG. So at last some of the T31 need to have upgraded weapons and sensors .

Both the Atlas and Captas sonar options that you describe seem to have plus points. I think it is interesting he fact you mnetioned that IH also have Tacticos might make integrating Atlas easier for T31. Plus the cross compatability with the Atlas ARCIMS USV Seasebse system is interesting, especially given the speculation of that T32 might likely be based upon the T31 hull and the possible role for T32 (deploying USV).

Having the T31 and T32 based on a common hull and using many common systems such as Tacticos and Atlas might help minimise costs and maximise cross compatbility between the two classes. specially if RN does provide more escorts in the pivot to Indo-Pacific.

However does that leave the RN light in what I still regard as it's core mission in North Atlantic / GIUK / High North? Will 6*T45 and 8*T26 be sufficent?? In which case it might mean that some of the T31/T32 deployed here might be better with Captas system.

At the moment so much is unclear speculation until we learn more about MOD's future defence funding lvels and how the RN thinks it can use that funding to its best effect.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

The Iver Huitfeldts have Atlas Elektonik hull mounted sonar and the Danes are procuring towed arrays to be fitted to the Absalons to add to their existing HMS.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 13:53So we have typically 3 options; Option-1 = go without any sonar and focus on global patrol sloop tasks, rather put resources on improving other ASW assets. Option-2 = go with ATLAS sonar family. Option-3 = go with Thales sonar family. Option-2/3 will "rob" resources from improving other ASW assets, but will improve T31's ASW capability.
Frankly all of those options are suboptimal.

Underarmed Frigates really aren’t going to cut it for the foreseeable future. The global security picture is too hot and will be for some time.

Commissioning Frigates that can’t detect submarines, have no offensive capability if the embarked helo is inoperable and completely reliant on only12 CAMM to protect the 100 crew is undeniably negligent. What other navy in the world is copying RN is this regard?

It’s time for a complete practical and strategic rethink of the T31/T32 direction of travel. The Frigate design is fine, it’s the armament and sensor fit-out that is at fault.

Apart from saving money what is to be achieved by reducing the capability of the T31 when compared to the T23? It’s completely unjustifiable.

If the T31 had 32 CAMM, 8 Harpoon, Mk45, 2x 40mm and a credible hull mounted sonar the debate would be over. Adding Captas4 via a POD system would be eminently sensible especially if such PODs could be switched between different classes as the need arose.

Adding 3 or 4 RB3’s to the Overseas Patrol Squadron is a sensible and proportionate way to cost effectively expand the fleet in the short to medium term to ensure global coverage is maintained or enhanced whilst allowing the escort fleet to concentrate on securing the UK’s territorial integrity.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

If there is more money IF then for me add 3 x T-26 to the Batch 2 order only if BAE can build them for 850 million each , Add 3 more T-31 to make 8 ships , Build 4 x RB-3's

Type 26 stay as they are

Type 31 add containerised sonar , 8 x NSM , plus fit 24-32 CAMM

RB-3 107 meters add a Hangar and fit with 2 x 40mm guns if needed helicopter will carry LMM or Sea Venom

But for buying 6 to 8 containerised sonars is the key as these could be carried on the Type 31 , RB-2's , RB-1's and if built RB-3's

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 03 Oct 2022, 11:36
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 13:53So we have typically 3 options; Option-1 = go without any sonar and focus on global patrol sloop tasks, rather put resources on improving other ASW assets. Option-2 = go with ATLAS sonar family. Option-3 = go with Thales sonar family. Option-2/3 will "rob" resources from improving other ASW assets, but will improve T31's ASW capability.
Frankly all of those options are suboptimal.

Underarmed Frigates really aren’t going to cut it for the foreseeable future. The global security picture is too hot and will be for some time.

Commissioning Frigates that can’t detect submarines, have no offensive capability if the embarked helo is inoperable and completely reliant on only12 CAMM to protect the 100 crew is undeniably negligent. What other navy in the world is copying RN is this regard?
Again, I feel sympathy to your point, but I think it is still worth discussing "what" is inappropriate.

T31 was introduced to FREE the high-end assets from Gulf task, as I understand. Iran is playing "gray zone" game, because it is the best way to drain resource out of west, or UK. It is clear that, fast boat swarm tactics works only when it is peace. AFTER the war declared, air-raid can easily neutralize it. But, if war is NOT declared, ROE will never allow it. Therefore, UK needs a surface vessel with good short-range/close-in fighting capability to be "stationed" in the theater. T31 is exactly the best equipped ship for that task. Any additional ASW and ASM armaments are just a logistic burden, simply reducing the sea-going days and draining the precious man-power.

As such, I think RN needs at least 2 T31s as currently armed. It is far from sub-optimal. It is the best asset RN can send there. It is also the best asset to handle Houthi-Rebels, so maybe 3 will be needed.
It’s time for a complete practical and strategic rethink of the T31/T32 direction of travel. The Frigate design is fine, it’s the armament and sensor fit-out that is at fault.
Not sure. "a complete practical and strategic rethink of the T31/T32" for me is "ADD more T26". T31 is already ordered, so let's make best use of it. T32? Just rename it T26 batch 2.5, and build 3 of them at Rosyth. Together with batch 2 T26 to be built in Clyde with increased number of 7, we will see 13 T26 fleet.

- 6 T45 for AAW
- 13 T26 for multi-purpose (not GP) ASW escorts
- 3 "T31-as-is" sloops (GP frigate, in RN naming), as lightly armed as currently planned
and
- 2 "T31-mod" light-frigate, with 24 CAMM, 8 NSM, and a 57mm gun, two 40 mm gun, and a hull sonar.

Here I define T31-mod to be "escorts under air-cover" of P-8A and/or SeaGuardian ASW-UAVs. ASW is the tasks of these air assets, and T31mod is there to provide local-area air-defense against possible submarine-launched ASM.
Apart from saving money what is to be achieved by reducing the capability of the T31 when compared to the T23? It’s completely unjustifiable.
Saving money and man-power is ALWAYS the top priority. It is especially so in hot era. See T14 frigates. See T23 original concepts. When the environment is HOT, the escort became more and more specialist, and not generalist. "T31-as-is" is the specialist for middle-east tasks. If UK decide to retreat from middle-east, then "T31 as is" will lose rationale.
If the T31 had 32 CAMM, 8 Harpoon, Mk45, 2x 40mm and a credible hull mounted sonar the debate would be over. Adding Captas4 via a POD system would be eminently sensible especially if such PODs could be switched between different classes as the need arose.
This is not much different from my "T31-mod" light-frigate.
Adding 3 or 4 RB3’s to the Overseas Patrol Squadron is a sensible and proportionate way to cost effectively expand the fleet in the short to medium term to ensure global coverage is maintained or enhanced whilst allowing the escort fleet to concentrate on securing the UK’s territorial integrity.
No big objection, but only if 2 River B2s in Indo-Pacific are called back to cover British water patrol. (I personally think British water patrol can be done with much cheaper OPVs, and leave the 2 River B2s steaming globally).

Just a thought. Not saying your idea is bad. Just presenting my own.

Cheers :D
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Lord Jim

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/1 ... -sabotage/

A Royal Navy frigate was on Monday night sent to the North Sea in a show of force after a suspected Russian attack on the Nord Stream pipeline.

The Ministry of Defence said it was looking to reassure partners after the pipelines in the Nord Stream network burst in an act of suspected sabotage near Swedish and Danish waters.

The ministry said a Royal Navy frigate was in the area and working with the Norwegian navy.

The frigate was most likely to be the Type 23 HMS Somerset, which was days ago taking part in training with Norwegian sailors in Stavanger.

The two major lines, which were built to deliver natural gas from Russia to Germany, ruptured in three separate places last week after explosions under the Baltic Sea.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

With the T-31 could we go down the well-trodden route of FFBNW for additional capabilities? Build the first two or three as per the current design and amend the last two so that they are fully plumbed in for additional Sea Ceptor, the Interim AShM and maybe replacing one of the 40mm with a Phalanx or Sea RAM. The first two or three would then be brought up to this standard during their first schedules refit. As these are the RN's "Gulf Frigates", the additional kit would be held ashore in Bahrain and could be installed when temperatures rise in the region. Such an increase in capability would also make said Frigates more suitable for being added to either the Carrier Group or Amphibious Group as well. Just a few thoughts.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

With type 31 I would keep the 2 x 40mm and if you wanted Phalanx or SeaRam add one each side of the rear 40mm I would like to see them fitted with NSM plus I would like to see them able to deploy a containerised TAS from the space under the flight deck

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Not really a practical proposition, due to the interference with each other’s firing arcs.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 04 Oct 2022, 09:48 Not really a practical proposition, due to the interference with each other’s firing arcs.
with which firing arcs are talking about

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

With type 31 I would keep the 2 x 40mm and if you wanted Phalanx or SeaRam add one each side of the rear 40mm

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Yes but which arcs are conflicting with which arcs

If look at the 2019 model it has this very configuration 40mm on top and a Phalanx each side

Post Reply