Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

Much can happen between now and 2035. Much depends on the elephant in The room, which is Successor. Reasonable assumptions about current programs will lead to some financial space in 2032-34. Design doesn’t cost much if you’re importing the missile. I think 83 will start on time and if there’s a delay then maybe a 9th 26 or 3 OPVs come into the picture.

Hopefully by then the whole Indyref thing has died down

Exactly. Things may go better, thing may go worse.

Therefore, "plan-B" is needed. Betting everything on "hopeful future" is a bad thing. Being pessimistic and throwing away everything is also bad.

I think T83 is still there, just seeing delay. So, what to do in "possible 5-6 years of gap" is my concern. On the other hand, I see no big needs in T32, it will remain "nice to have" and therefore shall come in only when everything goes better.


Gap-filler-candidate-1: On this regard, designing a new OPV hull, and building a few as "MHC-LSV" is my proposal. If "gap filler" be needed, these OPV can fill about a half of the gap (equivalent to 3 years), as River B2 OPV replacements (which was a 3-year gap-filler themselves).

Gap-filler-candidate-2: As another gap-filler, an AAW enhanced T26 might be an option. If RN decide to go with US-based AAW kits, adopt (son-of) AEGIS following US Constellation class frigates, and fill the 24 Mk.41 VLS cells with 24 SM-6 while keeping 48 CAMM/CAMM-ER/CAMM-MR as is. If with Aster world, replace the 24-cell Mk.41 VLS with 24-cell Sylver 70, and fill it with 24 Aster-30, while keeping 48 CAMM/CAMM-ER/CAMM-MR as is. Of course, we need SAMPSON Mk.2 at the mast, but surely it will be lowered (because of top weight).

2 such hulls may replace 2 T45, 4 T83 will replace the remaining 4 T45, and eventually the last 2 T83 will replace the first 2 T26 in future. RN AAW capability will be slightly reduced temporary, but no big change overall.


Yes, gap-filler-1 is "what the River B2s must have been in 2013" = RN must have prepared a better OPV design best fit for RN purpose (like 3 100m-class OPV(H), to be combined with 4 River B1s)

And, yes, gap-filler-2 is exactly what the French navy is doing with FREMM-DA.

[Tempest414]

For me the fleet balance needs to be

14 X C-1 escorts
6 X C-2 escorts
12 X C-3 105 meter MHPC's
6 X 200 x 35 flat top MRSS

I am not so interested in BOST's as much I am more interested in where we might have to intervene or challenge the likes of Russia and China places like the Indian Ocean , both sides of Africa the North & South Atlantic , South America and we need to be able to do this at all levels

for me the Flattop MRSS is needed for deep intervention through the use of helicopters and long range drones something like a naval Reaper normal load would be 6 helicopters and 2 Drones with a war load of 12 helicopters and 6 drones

[SD67]

I'd go for gap filler 2 - build a couple more type 26s. Problem with OPVs is they don't actually fill the gap. The trades you really need to retain are the people doing the high end integration. There's not much of that work on a simple OPV. BAE in Melbourne were offered a couple of simple OPVs as gap fillers and they turned them down because there's no point.

[Tempest414]

So for me thinking on it over night the key is the need for a new MHPC class this will have two benefits

1 ) they will allow type 32 & 83 to be pushed back around 4 to 5 years allowing us to get them right
2 ) they will be better suited to the global deployment of all types of unmanned UAV's , USV's and USSV's

As I said yesterday design work should start now with the view of building 12 ships 6 by BAE at the end of the type 26 run and 6 by Babcocks at the end of the type 31 run these 12 ships should have a price cap of 100 million and would be 105 x 17 meters have a 6000 Nm range a crew of 45 plus bunks for up to 60 system operators and would fitted with a good radar , CMS , 2 x 40mm , 8 round LMM mount .

These ships would replace all C-3 ships in the fleet and would be forward deployed all over the globe with a average of 250 sea going days

[RichardIC]

So for me thinking on it over night the key is the need for a new MHPC class this will have two benefits

1 ) they will allow type 32 & 83 to be pushed back around 4 to 5 years allowing us to get them right
2 ) they will be better suited to the global deployment of all types of unmanned UAV's , USV's and USSV's

As I said yesterday design work should start now with the view of building 12 ships 6 by BAE at the end of the type 26 run and 6 by Babcocks at the end of the type 31 run these 12 ships should have a price cap of 100 million and would be 105 x 17 meters have a 6000 Nm range a crew of 45 plus bunks for up to 60 system operators and would fitted with a good radar , CMS , 2 x 40mm , 8 round LMM mount .

These ships would replace all C-3 ships in the fleet and would be forward deployed all over the globe with a average of 250 sea going days

Not going to happen. MoD Equipment Plan was published last week. Made it quite clear one vessel already purchased on the commercial market to support mine warfare around UK shores. Four more to be bought to support global operations.

It didn't make it clear if these would be newbuilds to a bespoke design or again commercially sourced. I suspect this doesn't need to be a bespoke design. Sourcing four identical vessels on the commercial market maybe a challenge.



MROSS will probably end up doing a lot of future hydrography.

[shark bait]

And that's totally the right way to do it. There's no need for C3 / MHCP to be a bespoke military design because everything interesting about that class should be handled by the off-board systems and it's promising after a decade of discussion the MOD is finally going to buy something.

A conversion is fine for this first one off ship. As the Navy go forward and want more ships, I hope they are new build to ensure a common platform.

[serge750]

All RN ships should be capable of carrying off board systems - whether it’s a converted OSV or Frigate / Destroyer should be dictated by the threat level it’s operating in.

An OSV for example is fine in UK waters, a similar commercial ship is also fine globally deployed in low threat environments. However a MHPC (or similar) would be required if operating in a low-mid threat environment and T26 in a high threat environment. Of course you can combine to give a protective bubble, but let’s not pretend that we have the luxury of numbers to do this.

[Tempest414]

So for me thinking on it over night the key is the need for a new MHPC class this will have two benefits

1 ) they will allow type 32 & 83 to be pushed back around 4 to 5 years allowing us to get them right
2 ) they will be better suited to the global deployment of all types of unmanned UAV's , USV's and USSV's

As I said yesterday design work should start now with the view of building 12 ships 6 by BAE at the end of the type 26 run and 6 by Babcocks at the end of the type 31 run these 12 ships should have a price cap of 100 million and would be 105 x 17 meters have a 6000 Nm range a crew of 45 plus bunks for up to 60 system operators and would fitted with a good radar , CMS , 2 x 40mm , 8 round LMM mount .

These ships would replace all C-3 ships in the fleet and would be forward deployed all over the globe with a average of 250 sea going days

Not going to happen. MoD Equipment Plan was published last week. Made it quite clear one vessel already purchased on the commercial market to support mine warfare around UK shores. Four more to be bought to support global operations.

It didn't make it clear if these would be newbuilds to a bespoke design or again commercially sourced. I suspect this doesn't need to be a bespoke design. Sourcing four identical vessels on the commercial market maybe a challenge.



MROSS will probably end up doing a lot of future hydrography.

I know it is not going to happen there has been to much knee jerk kit over the the last 10 years this is the same problem the army is facing

I don't mind the Belgian - Dutch mother ships just add another 20 meters to it allowing it to have a rear flight deck add a extra 40mm on the shed roof and we have the ship I would be looking for in the C-3 role

[tomuk]

France who we share our mine hunting tech with are buying six of the Dutch\Belgian (all being built in France) MCM motherships.

[SW1]

Those Belgian motherships are capable of deploying the unmanned submarine the navy recently ordered too.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I'd go for gap filler 2 - build a couple more type 26s. Problem with OPVs is they don't actually fill the gap. The trades you really need to retain are the people doing the high end integration. There's not much of that work on a simple OPV. BAE in Melbourne were offered a couple of simple OPVs as gap fillers and they turned them down because there's no point.

Understand your point.

However I still think designing a new OPV is good, because it will open up an export market, uparmed opv as a corvette. Currently, BAE and Babcock both lacks such design. If Global Britain finds some opportunity, all UK can do is to buy foreign design and build.

Building OPV does give chance for ship hull building experience. CMS integration experience can be obtained by LIFEX of T45.

Of course, opv is not an ideal option, but NOT BAD as a plan-B, to fill about a half of the possible 5-6 years gap, I think.

“More T26” to fill another half is very nice, as I said. But, if we build many, it will end up killing T83, I’m afraid.

[Poiuytrewq]

….it will end up killing T83, I’m afraid.

Does RN actually need T83 or would a more numerous batch of T26 ASW/AAW be good enough?

[Repulse]

“More T26” to fill another half is very nice, as I said. But, if we build many, it will end up killing T83, I’m afraid.

It will not kill it as such, it would push any follow up class to the right (2040s) which is ok. As we’ve discussed elsewhere there is a strong argument that the TXX will be the single Multirole tier one ship to replace the T26s.

[SD67]

“More T26” to fill another half is very nice, as I said. But, if we build many, it will end up killing T83, I’m afraid.

It will not kill it as such, it would push any follow up class to the right (2040s) which is ok. As we’ve discussed elsewhere there is a strong argument that the TXX will be the single Multirole tier one ship to replace the T26s.

It's called the "Hunter Class"

[Tempest414]

If we want to get the best out of our money as said we need to get out of this knee jerk reaction of buying ships to fill gaps weather it is in build programs = River B2 or over spend = Type 31 or ships that can move off board kit = second hand MROSS

We need ships that can challenge the likes of China as it pushes out in to the Indian Ocean and Atlantic Oceans. As I said yesterday we need a single class MHPC and the more I think of it the more I think this class of ship needs to be built between the end of type 26/ 31 and the start of type 32/ 83.

We could move to just 2 classes with 16 ships in each. Class 1 we can call it type 28 and class 2 we can call it the type 12

Type 28 = 155 x 21 meters crew 140 , AAW /ASW capable armament 1 x 127mm , 4 x 40mm , 16 x NSM & 64 VLS cells
Type 12 = 107 x 17 meters crew 50 , MCM , Hydrographic , ASW , Patrol capable armament 2 x 40mm , 1 x 8 round LMM mount

Type 28 cost per ship 850 to 900 million
Type 12 cost per ships 100 to 110 million

Program cost 17 billion over 25 years

[Ron5]

In no other industry would they spend a clean fortune designing a new product from the ground up and then junking and moving on to another entirely new ground up design after a few years it’s like we are awash with cash.

Like the RAF going from Typhoon to Tempest? How silly. Just add gen 6 capability to Typhoon and save all the Tempest development costs, easy peasy.

[Ron5]

Or simply sell the early type 26 to countries currently running hand me down type 22/23 and keep iterating new builds at the end.

You seem to think the RN would keep any money generated from ship sales. Think again, it all goes to the Treasury.

[Ron5]

Or develop a new AAW radar and upper works to fit on type 26 hull form remove the mission bay and add VLS's to give 80 and set a price of 900 million and move straight from type 26 No-8 to type 47 No-1

Add stealth, new engines, and new radar to Typhoon. Set a price of 80 million and hey presto - Tempest!! POC.

[Ron5]

Or develop a new AAW radar and upper works to fit on type 26 hull form remove the mission bay and add VLS's to give 80 and set a price of 900 million and move straight from type 26 No-8 to type 47 No-1

Basically iterating the design then, Samson radar atop a new mast, a 57mm gun up front instead of the 155mm gun could get 6x8 vl cells in the front, camm on the roof at the back ect ect. Others have managed it with the design already without compromising the asw nature as seen in Canada and aus. In no other industry would they spend a clean fortune designing a new product from the ground up and then junking and moving on to another entirely new ground up design after a few years it’s like we are awash with cash. Not just specific to ships either.

If no ASW capability is required why not just build more T45s perhaps with a modified propulsion system to generate much more power for directed energy weapons?

The type 26 is in production the type 45 is not. We should only have 1 high end escort type imo.

IMO The RAF should only have one high end FJ type. Scrap all the Typhoons before buying a single Tempest....

.. and the same for the FAA. Just (all) the F-35Bs.

[Ron5]

The days of gold plated bespoke vanity and legacy projects must be consigned to history.

I think its about time you visited a RN warship and went looking for the gold plating. I suspect they'll let you keep whatever you find.

[SW1]

Or develop a new AAW radar and upper works to fit on type 26 hull form remove the mission bay and add VLS's to give 80 and set a price of 900 million and move straight from type 26 No-8 to type 47 No-1

Basically iterating the design then, Samson radar atop a new mast, a 57mm gun up front instead of the 155mm gun could get 6x8 vl cells in the front, camm on the roof at the back ect ect. Others have managed it with the design already without compromising the asw nature as seen in Canada and aus. In no other industry would they spend a clean fortune designing a new product from the ground up and then junking and moving on to another entirely new ground up design after a few years it’s like we are awash with cash. Not just specific to ships either.

If no ASW capability is required why not just build more T45s perhaps with a modified propulsion system to generate much more power for directed energy weapons?

The type 26 is in production the type 45 is not. We should only have 1 high end escort type imo.

IMO The RAF should only have one high end FJ type. Scrap all the Typhoons before buying a single Tempest....

.. and the same for the FAA. Just (all) the F-35Bs.

You will be surprised to know that I do believe the same applies to the RAF it should only have 1 fastjet type.

And in relation to your other post adding new sensors/engines to a new build typhoon could very much be considered instead of tempest especially if a stealthy ucav was part of the mix. The only reason that it won’t be is there is a political decision not to have Spain and Germany involved.

[shark bait]

Shouldn't really need to be said, but frigates/destroyers are not fighter jets. The performance is not in the metal, its in the systems.

[Ron5]

The performance is not in the metal, its in the systems.

Yeah, modern FJ's are nothing like that. Now tell me all about F-35 Block IV.

[Ron5]

You will be surprised to know that I do believe the same applies to the RAF it should only have 1 fastjet type.

Not in the least surprised, the RAF is constitutionally hostile to aircraft carriers and maritime air. Left to them, the carriers would be scrapped tomorrow.

And in relation to your other post adding new sensors/engines to a new build typhoon could very much be considered instead of tempest especially is a stealthy ucav was part of the mix.

Ha, ha, ha. The RAF giving up on Tempest? Pull the other one. And how do you transition from one aircraft type to another if only one type at a time is allowed in service?

BTW, stealthy UCAV seems to have bitten the UK dust. No more loyal wingmen just Walmart drones per Ukraine.

[Ron5]

Or simply sell the early type 26 to countries currently running hand me down type 22/23 and keep iterating new builds at the end.

You seem to think the RN would keep any money generated from ship sales. Think again, it all goes to the Treasury.

I could have posted this half a dozen times in this thread over the past few days. Selling any military equipment does not increase the defence budget by one penny. If you can't afford a new ship, selling an old ship will just leave you shipless.