Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SW1]

Rimpac 22 is currently on what of the above list from the U.K. is taking part?

What the UK has at RIMPAC 22 is not the point. The UK's day to day work in the Indo-Pacific would be done by the 2 x B2's and the LRG(S) with the above CANZUK battle group coming together every 4 years around RIMPAC or not

As said from the UK point of view we would already have the LRG and a Bay class EoS so this would be joined by a CSG plus an extra tanker every 4 years and then this core group would be joined by

Australia = 1 x LHD ,2 x Destroyers , 3 x Frigates , 2 x SSK , 1 x Bay , 1 x Tanker
Canada = 3 x Frigates , 2 x SSK , 1 x Tanker
New Zealand = 1 x Frigate , 1 x Tanker & HMNZS Canterbury

For me this is all very doable in 4 years and then every 4 year after that

I would even say this group should be under RAN command

In there own words it is he largest maritime warfare exercise in the world promoting stability in the pacific to the benefit of all participating nations.

The claim is the region is so critical we must send the entire deployable RN (roughly the size of the force quoted above) to exercise there repeatedly. Yet even building up to such a deployment in the preceding exercises we have sent noting at all and considering it’s a once every two year event that would to me tell you everything you need to know about the reality behind the PR fluff.

[Tempest414]

The RN's build up in the Indo- Pacific over the last few years has been a steady one

2018 Albion deployed into the Indo -Pac and took part in many local Ex's ending in a large RN Exercise with 1 LPD , 2 x Bay , 1 x T-45 , 1 x Point & 2 x MCM

2019 1 x T-23 deployed into the Indo-Pac

2020 1 x T-23 deployed into the Indo-Pac

2021 CSG21 deployed into the Indo-Pac and latter the 2 B2's were Forward deployed

2022 the 2 B2's have carried out a great work package

2023 The LRG (S) are due to forward deploy into the Ind-Pacific along with the B2's

It would not be a big shock to anyone if in 2026 the CSG deployed into the Indo - Pacific for CSG-26 five years after the first EoS deployment. this gives us 3 years to work with other CANZUK / Commonwealth members to build up to the Above Battle group

[wargame_insomniac]

The RN's build up in the Indo- Pacific over the last few years has been a steady one

2018 Albion deployed into the Indo -Pac and took part in many local Ex's ending in a large RN Exercise with 1 LPD , 2 x Bay , 1 x T-45 , 1 x Point & 2 x MCM

2019 1 x T-23 deployed into the Indo-Pac

2020 1 x T-23 deployed into the Indo-Pac

2021 CSG21 deployed into the Indo-Pac and latter the 2 B2's were Forward deployed

2022 the 2 B2's have carried out a great work package

2023 The LRG (S) are due to forward deploy into the Ind-Pacific along with the B2's

It would not be a big shock to anyone if in 2026 the CSG deployed into the Indo - Pacific for CSG-26 five years after the first EoS deployment. this gives us 3 years to work with other CANZUK / Commonwealth members to build up to the Above Battle group

I think you are forgetting quite how few escorts the RN currently has and will have for s few years to come. Since Monmouth was decommissioned, the RN have had 18 escorts (6*T45, 8*T23 ASW, 4*T23 GP. But for the last couple of years we have had 1*T45 undergoing PIP and 4*T23 undrgoing LIFEX, so effectively at best 13 escorts, in practice often even lower with other ships undergoing short term maintenance and repairs (e.g. several times where just ONE T45 was seaworthy).

RN crewing is so tight that we have seen Scott, Trenchant and Talent all retired early in the last few months. Somerset has just completed FOST after finally finishing LIFEX, leaving just 3*T23 undergoing LIFEX. BUT shortly 2*T45 are going to be undergoing PIP simultaneously as MOD is belatedly accelerating that PIP programme. And I believe that when Montrose is being retired early that is to synchronise with the next T23 finishing LIFEX. So we are not going to have more than 13 escorts available anytime soon. And unless RN can increase recruitment and improve crew retention soon, then as the last remaining ships come out of PIP / LIFEX, then we currently don't have enough crew for them, so the likelihood is that mor of the T23 will be retired early.

And yes from 2027 we should start seeing the arrival of first T31 frigates in active service and maybe 2028 before Glasgow is the first T26 to do likewise.

The point is that it is going to be years before we have the first T31 frigate available for EoS, and the first one will probably have to take over RN contribution to Operation Kipion. So your fantasy Pacific fleet is most unlikely for many years to come.

[Tempest414]

Oh I know how few escorts we have however if we were to send the CSG EoS in 2026 she would go with 4 UK escorts the rest would already be deployed in the Indo-Pacific from 2023

[SomeoneAh]

A question come cross my mind recently, i am happy to see T83 will become the next AAW warship that replace the T45, but the price of that new ship might cause fewer number of ship will be purchase by the RN, i guess 8 will be the most possible number base on the T26 program, 10 will be better. But the question is 8 or even 6 Type 83 for the RN to operate two CSG in any time is a bit too few in my point of view, they might stress out the type 45 just like the what happen in CGS 21.

So my opinions is RN should look for a sub class for AAW just like what the RN has done to replace 13 T23 with 8 T26 and 5 T31, therefore i think the RN should do the same when replacing the T45 use two class of ship, the first of course are the type 83 and the sub class maybe T26 AAW version or T31 AAW version, both T26 and T31 had already developed a AAW version which the RN can quickly adopt and build in the future.

Also the reason i think T26 and T31 should be the sub class, one is there are already a AAW version already being develop, also there are already factor building the T26 and T31, so the experience can be easily transfer, the last is the about cost use the design of T26 AAW version from Canada and T31 design from Holland can greatly reduce the development cost and reduce the chance of delay.

With two class of ship to replace the T45, 8 T83 and 6 T26 AAW/ T31 AAW. The RN can boost the number of escorts and reduce stress of ship shortage.

What do you guys think?

[serge750]

The best thing the RN can do is trying to establish a drumbeat of classes with double digit vessels and stop wasting money building in small batches.

[SomeoneAh]

The best thing the RN can do is trying to establish a drumbeat of classes with double digit vessels and stop wasting money building in small batches.

Indeed, If the Rn can get 13-15 T83 it would be the best outcome, but i am just afraid the tragedy of T45 will happen once again.

[Repulse]

The best thing the RN can do is trying to establish a drumbeat of classes with double digit vessels and stop wasting money building in small batches.

Indeed, If the Rn can get 13-15 T83 it would be the best outcome, but i am just afraid the tragedy of T45 will happen once again.

The first thing the RN should do is start by building a few more T26s. 10 should be the minimum for each class, though ideally 12.

[SomeoneAh]

The best thing the RN can do is trying to establish a drumbeat of classes with double digit vessels and stop wasting money building in small batches.

Indeed, If the Rn can get 13-15 T83 it would be the best outcome, but i am just afraid the tragedy of T45 will happen once again.

The first thing the RN should do is start by building a few more T26s. 10 should be the minimum for each class, though ideally 12.

Totally agree, the export of type 26 had made 6bn, so there is enough money for another batch of type 26 maybe 2 or 3, or they can use the money to speed up the development of Type 83 so they can be service in 2030 or 2031

[Jdam]

I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we are going to get any more than 6 Type 83 Destroyers. I suspect the Type 83 might be similar in size to the Zumwalt-class, it might even have the same type of superstructure (we have already seem the introduction of composites with the type 26) like some have said a cruiser in all but name. Ideally we would keep the Type 45's and reclassify Type 83 as a Cruiser, the idea being we could plan the man power requirements well ahead of time.

It comes down to the same old problem we need more of everything, Subs, ASW frigates, GP frigates and AA escorts. We are not going to get more money for building new ships than we already have, so the best I can think of is to keep existing ones going. Lets face it its going to take us to the 2030s to upgrade all the type 45s, seems a waste to them get ride of them.

[Anthony58]

The size of the Type 83, has to fit in the new assembly hall at Govan, the only likely place it will be built, with a barge to remove a the completed warship.

The size of the Royal Navy is limited by the number of the Royal Navy personnel, in the 2035/40 period to crew operational warships/and part of RFA's ships. Sustaining a drumbeat of completions every 18 months (currently two years) on the BAE yards on the Clyde, with each warship having an operational life of 30 years, suggests a maximum of 9 Type 83's before moving to the Type 26 replacement programme.

Rosyth would be left with building a small batch or two of frigates currently Type 31 and possibly Type 32 and then doing other work.

I was told by someone in the industry there is a planned four year's gap between Type 26 and Type 83.

[Repulse]

I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we are going to get any more than 6 Type 83 Destroyers.

You are probably right, and if it does turn out to be the case, better to build a second batch of T26s with enhanced AAW capabilities, than waste money on a small number in a new class.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we are going to get any more than 6 Type 83 Destroyers.

You are probably right, and if it does turn out to be the case, better to build a second batch of T26s with enhanced AAW capabilities, than waste money on a small number in a new class.

But, UK will lose ship design technology? T26 is the last escort designed in UK. Without T83, the whole design team will disappear.

[Repulse]

But, UK will lose ship design technology? T26 is the last escort designed in UK. Without T83, the whole design team will disappear.

I don’t agree - there are numerous opportunities for innovative design. I’d be getting the boffins looking at an innovative MHPC+ASW Mothership which could be built in numbers next.

Also, another (or complimentary) option is to build true multi-role (Arleigh Burke-class type) first class escorts that are built in batches of 12. This in reality would mean ordering another 9 extended T26s (beyond the 3 already ordered) upgrading ASW Radar / missiles / systems; then ensuring the T83 is also multi-role, so that in the mid 2040’s (based on current numbers) the fleet would be 12 T26s and 2 T83s (with a schedule for T83s to replace the T26s and a new “T84” design in the pipeline).

[ArmChairCivvy]

maybe T26 AAW version or T31 AAW version, both T26 and T31 had already developed a AAW version which the RN can quickly adopt

Where does T32 fit into that?

The first thing the RN should do is start by building a few more T26s. 10 should be the minimum for each class, though ideally 12.

Indeed. After the first five, we should switch to AAW. Money would restrict those to 5... all these numbers fit nicely with the 5th anniversary of me drumming about this... somehow it would also fit with the below quote, assuming the 2-yr drum beat is continued all through:

was told by someone in the industry there is a planned four year's gap between Type 26 and Type 83.

CTFs? 65-70% availability... base the T83 numbers on the fact that needing one or two of them with each carrier group would not be constant
- and then perfectly (!) synchronise the times spent in dock between the two classes

The above is not the same argument as whether we need 4 or 3 Boomers; they have no substitutes should the 'perfect' assumptions prove less than perfect

[Tempest414]

I would say we need to build two more type 26 and then move on to build 8 Type 83 I would like to see type 83

160 x 22 meters
BMD capable
100 + VLS
3 x 57mm
NATO standard ASW
8000 nm range
Crew of 160

[ArmChairCivvy]

160 x 22 meters

Not too far off from 149.9 m (492 ft), a beam of 20.8 m (68 ft)... on these AAW ships the crew will soon lose the gym as ABM has been announced to be coming
T83 will go up from just anti-Abm to being capable of dealing with hypersonic threats
- i guess no one has an exact idea of what that would entail
- but a good guess is growing demands on space and power generation

[Dobbo]

The power topic is an interesting one - I’m wondering if nuclear is going to come into the discussion.

[SW1]

Yet more desire for concentration of ever more expensive eggs in an ever smaller basket. If what’s suggested is what this type 83 ends up like. Next we will be saying there too expensive to risk and we need an escort for the escorts. It’s a 180 move in the opposite direction to what is suggested more sensors and missiles systems in smaller numbers distributed on more ships which are much cheaper to build some of while will be unmanned barges.


If the air threat is so high for putting ships going close to China or Russia to deny such states space to operate due to there invest in anti ship missile systems then go underwater and render such investment obsolete.

[SomeoneAh]

I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we are going to get any more than 6 Type 83 Destroyers. I suspect the Type 83 might be similar in size to the Zumwalt-class

That is why i am suggesting that the RN should purchase some lower end AAW , even the biggest navy in the world the US navy won’t purchase only cruisers to carry out all the missions, they still require arleigh burke class to become the back bone of the navy, we can’t only relies on one singles design.

Type 26 hull has a lot of potential, if the hull can be extend to 160m or even 170m the T26 can become the RN version of arleigh burke class and be the back bone of the RN.

But i still agree the T83 should keep proceeding, because we need the T83 to play the role of AAW command for the CSG.

[Tempest414]

160 x 22 meters

Not too far off from 149.9 m (492 ft), a beam of 20.8 m (68 ft)... on these AAW ships the crew will soon lose the gym as ABM has been announced to be coming
T83 will go up from just anti-Abm to being capable of dealing with hypersonic threats
- i guess no one has an exact idea of what that would entail
- but a good guess is growing demands on space and power generation

160 meter would be ok with say 112 VLS this would allow the ship to carry 64 long range ABM missiles plus 128 CAMM/ CAMM-ER leaving 16 cells for other weapons

if we take type 45 if it had been fitted with the 16 strike length cells as planned they could of carried 32 Aster 30 plus 64 CAMM plus 16 other weapons and as it stands after getting the 24 CAMM they could still carry 40 Aster 30 and 56 CAMM

I would still like to see Type 31 get 24 Mk-41 cell so they could carry 32 CAMM and 16 Tomahawk Blk-V

[wargame_insomniac]

Also, another (or complimentary) option is to build true multi-role (Arleigh Burke-class type) first class escorts that are built in batches of 12. This in reality would mean ordering another 9 extended T26s (beyond the 3 already ordered) upgrading ASW Radar / missiles / systems; then ensuring the T83 is also multi-role, so that in the mid 2040’s (based on current numbers) the fleet would be 12 T26s and 2 T83s (with a schedule for T83s to replace the T26s and a new “T84” design in the pipeline).

I would be concerned about extending the T26 if you mean building these batch 2's as longer and thus heavier. The T26 are already pretty large warships, especially compared to the T23 that they are replacing. Did we need such large ASW Frigates? Larger warships are more expensive and take longer to build and will presumably require higher crew to operate.

(I feel the same about the T31. For their intended role as Patrol Frigates, my opinion is that they did nt need to be as large for their medium intensity missions).

Now if you meant extending the NUMBEER of T26, then I apologise for my assumption above. If we are talking about increased number of hulls, then my concern is the cost of T26. As I undrstand it, much of the high cost of T26 was the hull and gearbox designed for quietness with the mission of being a dedicated ASW hunter. Do we meed that on a ship intended to cover a AAW role?

In most of the discussions on the Escort thread, the overwhelming consensus is that we need more escorts (and more SSN's and more P8's and more F35B's etc). If we make the T26 longer and thus heavier, then that will require a redesign, will need more powerful engines producing more power (as we would nt want to have to go through a PIP situation with the T26), plus increases in cost, construction time and crew requirement.

The only way I could see that working is that if we used the existing design for th batch 2 T26's, and then use the T26 design as the basis for T83 with extended used to fit more VLS launchers and better radars and sensors. But is that making te T83 needlessly expensive if start with T26 quieter hull & gearbox.....

[SomeoneAh]

As I undrstand it, much of the high cost of T26 was the hull and gearbox designed for quietness with the mission of being a dedicated ASW hunter. Do we meed that on a ship intended to cover a AAW role?

Indeed the noise canceling hull use on the type 26 hull and the fancy gearbox is not require on a AAW version of type 26. But RN can still use the T26 as a basis and extend the hull for AAW just like what you mention, but replace the gearbox with FEP and install two MT30 engine, this design in my point of few is the most cost effective and much safer option.

If T83 design is basis on T26 i believe the RN can actually purchase more number of ship because of the lower unit cost.

[Repulse]

I would be concerned about extending the T26 if you mean building these batch 2's as longer and thus heavier.

Did we need such large ASW Frigates?

Now if you meant extending the NUMBER of T26, then I apologise for my assumption above. If we are talking about increased number of hulls, then my concern is the cost of T26. As I undrstand it, much of the high cost of T26 was the hull and gearbox designed for quietness with the mission of being a dedicated ASW hunter. Do we meed that on a ship intended to cover a AAW role?

My view is that there isn’t enough ASW frigates so by building an additional four T26s (and pushing the T83 programme back 8 years) fills some of that gap. Yes, the T45/T83 is there to provide AAW capabilities but I see they can do both - hypersonic defence is likely to require AAW warships further from the carrier to provide a wider air defence bubble. Will it cost more, possibly, but the efficiencies from scale (larger T26 fleet) will mitigate the cost increase. Looking at the Hunter and CSC will give us a guide.

I am not arguing that the T83 should be based on the T26 design, it should be a new design that can do both AAW / ASW roles. Before people get over excited ASW warfare in the 2040 is highly likely to be drone based, and as I said the air defence (and surface defence to that matter) bubble needs to be bigger so the whole current argument on positioning AAW and ASW assets differently is mute IMO.

Ideal would be to enlarge the first class fleet to 18 (or more) over the next decade or two, basically having the following before the first T83 comes online:
- 3 ASW T26s
- 9 ASW / AAW T26s
- 6 T45s

[tomuk]

As I undrstand it, much of the high cost of T26 was the hull and gearbox designed for quietness with the mission of being a dedicated ASW hunter. Do we meed that on a ship intended to cover a AAW role?

Indeed the noise canceling hull use on the type 26 hull and the fancy gearbox is not require on a AAW version of type 26. But RN can still use the T26 as a basis and extend the hull for AAW just like what you mention, but replace the gearbox with FEP and install two MT30 engine, this design in my point of few is the most cost effective and much safer option.

If T83 design is basis on T26 i believe the RN can actually purchase more number of ship because of the lower unit cost.

I'd just like to point out that after you have extended the width and length of the hull and replaced the powertrain and presumably modified the superstructure to carry the required high powered AAW/ABM radar you aren't basing your T83 on the T26 you have designed a new ship.