Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 May 2022, 12:10 adding any ASW capability is not attractive for me. Several SeaGuarding UAVs (ASW) will be much efficient.
I can't understand (under what circumstances) you make that parallel?

Anyway, your post is v interesting the context of the NavyLookout compilation of news on the forthcoming frigates
- did you see that one?
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)

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 27 May 2022, 12:53
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 May 2022, 12:10 adding any ASW capability is not attractive for me. Several SeaGuarding UAVs (ASW) will be much efficient.
I can't understand (under what circumstances) you make that parallel?
Its based on how to use "the same money" to achieve ASW capability (and man-power is mostly sent to RAF) :D
Anyway, your post is v interesting the context of the NavyLookout compilation of news on the forthcoming frigates
- did you see that one?
UK DJ's articie, I guess? Yes I saw it.

Some misleadings (T26 quoted with average cost, while T31 quotes with unit cost. If unit cost, it must be £800M vs £260M, if average it is £1300M vs £400M, per hull) and some un-confirmed (T31 24 CAMM = Goerge knows some information not-open, or just referring to "guess").

But, anyway interesting lists, I agree. Actually, my "modest uparming" proposal is not in-consistent with the article. Both T26 and T31, I added something....

User avatar
imperialman
Donator
Posts: 128
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by imperialman »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 May 2022, 14:29
ArmChairCivvy wrote: 27 May 2022, 12:53
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 May 2022, 12:10 adding any ASW capability is not attractive for me. Several SeaGuarding UAVs (ASW) will be much efficient.
I can't understand (under what circumstances) you make that parallel?
Its based on how to use "the same money" to achieve ASW capability (and man-power is mostly sent to RAF) :D
Anyway, your post is v interesting the context of the NavyLookout compilation of news on the forthcoming frigates
- did you see that one?
UK DJ's articie, I guess? Yes I saw it.

Some misleadings (T26 quoted with average cost, while T31 quotes with unit cost. If unit cost, it must be £800M vs £260M, if average it is £1300M vs £400M, per hull) and some un-confirmed (T31 24 CAMM = Goerge knows some information not-open, or just referring to "guess").

But, anyway interesting lists, I agree. Actually, my "modest uparming" proposal is not in-consistent with the article. Both T26 and T31, I added something....
Unfortunately just a mistake, I had the wrong section on 'Defence Insight', the article should be updated shortly. In addition, I've added int he unit cost methodology.
These users liked the author imperialman for the post (total 4):
donald_of_tokyoArmChairCivvywargame_insomniacJensy

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 27 May 2022, 10:53
wargame_insomniac wrote: 26 May 2022, 22:14 A beakdown of what is publicly known on the upcoming RN Frigates in today's UK defence journal based apparently on MOD responses to written questions or press releases from industry:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-guide ... ate-types/

A couple of snippets in the article I found particularly interesting:

Apparently T26 are due to have 48 cell VLS with Sea Ceptor and 24 cell strike-length Mk 41 VLS. That is more than I was hoping. But in service are currently expeted to be between 2027 and 2035 - let's hope that rumored gearbox problems don't get any worse.....

And I noticed that for first time that T31 don't appear to fitted with Phalanx CIWS. Yes they have 2*40mm secondary guns but that is instead of 2*30 mm DS30M Mk2 guns. So great at dealing with drones and small fast boats, but not so great versus missiles.
I am a little shocked that you were unsure of the Frigate armaments as this is were most of the talking is around

Yes Type 26 is to get 48 CAMM plus 24 Mk-41 and 1 x 127mm , 2 x 30mm , 2 x Phalanx however what most of us here would like to see is the 4 x 6 mushroom VLS replaced with 2 x 8 cell Mk-41 to make 32 Mk-41 on the forward missile deck and the 4 x 6 midships mushroom VLS replaced by 2 x Mk-41 allowing T-26 to carry 64 CAMM and 32 other weapons. I would also replace the 2 x 30mm and 2 x Phalanx with 4 x 40mm as the 64 CAMM would deal with missile threats and the 40mm is better suited to deal with UAV and fast boat threats but still gives good protection against missiles

As for Type 31 back in the day there was a model of a T-31 with 2 x Phalanx one each side of the rear 40mm mount however again if type 31 was to do away with the mushroom VLS and get 32 Mk-41 VLS it could carry 32 CAMM and 24 other weapon or half the weapons load out of a T-26 which would be about right for half the money

As I have said before a T-31 with 32 Mk-41 could carry 32 CAMM , 32 x VL Spear 3 & 16 Tomahawk Blk-V
Well I am a little shocked that you did not realise I was referring to two specific points of detail.

E.g. on T26 I had seen it mentioned before that they would have 24 CAMM and not the 48 noted in the article linked. I was pleased at seeing that higher figure.

But don't let that stop you repeating again what YOU would do......

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Type 26 has had 48 CAMM set out for at leased 4 years and this has been fixed from the start of the build 24 CAMM has been pushed around for Type 31 for sometime also as CGI of T-31 fitted with both 12 and 24 have been seen it is also been said by Babcock that the RN has not picked the number of CAMM to be fitted as yet

but to pick up on your point of Phalanx not being fitted to T-31 it is a little odd as the RN has set a patten in that they have fitted 2 to T-45 and will fit 2 to T-26 so why not fit 2 to T-31

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 »

Maybe simply because Phalanx is man power intensive, because of maintenance load?

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

I may well be completely wrong but I had assumed that the reason was simply that the 40mm Bofors is deemed to be a better CIWS than Phalanx is anyway? I appreciate that the primary role is to engage FAC but in the secondary AA role does 20mm really cut it anymore anyway when dealing with supersonic (soon to be hypersonic) incoming missiles?
These users liked the author Phil Sayers for the post (total 2):
SW1jedibeeftrix

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

More likely the T-31 was designed to a request for a "Gunboat" to patrol the Persian Gulf against IIRG FACs, for which the 40mm was deemed better.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Repulse

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I think the description of “gun boat” for the T31 is a good one, and IMO shows how the requirement has dated since world has changed over the past 10 years.

I think there are two global environments now in the world, permissive and non-permissive. Permissive are those whereby the RN can operate with allies and/or threat of being challenged by a potential aggressor. Non-permissive is where the RN should expect to be challenged and treated as a hostile actor. In the latter we should expect significant capabilities, either from a super power like Russia / China, or through proxies like Iran / North Korea / Syria.

Currently, I would put the high North Atlantic, eastern Mediterranean / Black Sea, Gulf and South China Sea as non-permissive environments.

For non-permissive environments we require a level of capability delivered through the likes of the T23s, T26s and T45s. Anything else should be seen as a HVU which needs escorting.

For permissive environments there is a low threat, where OPVs/ Sloops and RFAs can operate without escorts.

The T31 as it is currently configured falls between both and is over specified for one and a liability for the other.
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: 28 May 2022, 10:24 Currently, I would put the high North Atlantic, eastern Mediterranean / Black Sea, Gulf and South China Sea as non-permissive environments.
Yes, and how would you map our assets against that (1 in 3 and all that counted in)?

N. Atlantic is the 'Home Fleet'... so let's focus on the others
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

How about we build three T-31s to the current design, then build three to an improved more spikey variety briging the gap to four full fat Tier 2 T-32, bring the first six up to the same level as they go through planned maintenance in stages. Call them Batches 1, 2 and 3 why not.

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: 28 May 2022, 10:24 I think the description of “gun boat” for the T31 is a good one, and IMO shows how the requirement has dated since world has changed over the past 10 years.

...Non-permissive ... we should expect significant capabilities, either from a super power like Russia / China, or through proxies like Iran / North Korea / Syria.

...The T31 as it is currently configured falls between both and is over specified for one and a liability for the other.
Ummm. I think T31 armament is the right choice for Persian Gulf operations. Iran does NOT want to do full war, and thus they are approaching in gray zone way. And, in gray zone theater, ROE forces you to fight in close distance. So, "gun boat" T31 is exactly what is needed, because it is a specialist in close-in warfare.

As I understand, Persian Gulf situation saw no change in this decade. The "gray" threat is still there, and 12 CAMM is there to stop gradually increasing suicide drones and (cheapish) anti-ship missile.

In full fat war against Iran, UK can send T45/26/CVF. And, T31 will be with allied assets there, including intensive air cover. In this situation, T31 has many good jobs, as an escort for logistic fleet. (Actually, special forces like fast boat "gray zone" attack might be there. And, T31 can be their, with perfect equipment kits).

Just my opinion.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Well for me build 6 T-31's followed by 6 Type 32

T-31 = 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM and 16 Mk-41 VLS

T-32 = 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 32 Mk-41 VLS

And as said have a Atlantic fleet and a EoS fleet with the Escorts & OPV's spilt like so

Atlantic = 6 x T-45 , 8 x T- 26 , 2 x T-31 , 3 x T-32 & 5 OPVs

EoS fleet = 4 x T-31 , 3 x T-32

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 28 May 2022, 12:05
Repulse wrote: 28 May 2022, 10:24 Currently, I would put the high North Atlantic, eastern Mediterranean / Black Sea, Gulf and South China Sea as non-permissive environments.
Yes, and how would you map our assets against that (1 in 3 and all that counted in)?

N. Atlantic is the 'Home Fleet'... so let's focus on the others
Personally, I would be building 5 more T26s or freeing 5 up by upping the ASW capabilities on the T31 so that they can act (in combination with other assets) as ASW assets for the CSGs.

With 5 T26s you could in rotation base one in the Gulf (with a couple of MHPCs which could have 40mm/57mm guns) and another with the RAN.

These T26s (plus occasional vista from the CSGs / Home Fleet escorts) could cover the Eastern Med / Black Sea as they transit EoS like they do now.
”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

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 May 2022, 13:45 At last, the crew of HMS Argyll walkted into HMS IronDuke.

Almost sure that, HMS Montrose's crew, when she came back to UK for decommissioning in 2023, will walk into HMS Argyll.

twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1531241965483966465
Then, this means, RN is manning only 3 of GP Type-23s (Lancaster, Argyll/Iron Duke, and Montrose).

According to twitter, HMS Lancaster is now visiting Antwerp, and was joining Exercise Joint Warrior at the north, before it.

Argyll/Iron Duke is now in sit-down/stand-up phase.

The 180 x3 = 540 crew can man all 5 T31. Also, with lighter armaments and brand-new equipment, availability and sea-going days of 5 T31s will be at least twice what we see with the 3 GP Type-23s. In principle, RN can have two T31 in Persian Gulf, and another one in NATO fleet, with yet another one ready to deploy to another theater. (while one is in low readiness for basic training etc.) Looking forward to see it.

PS Actually, 4 T31 is more than enough to "replace" the tasks currently covered by the 4 T23 GPs (among which only 3 is manned). And, to my impression, GP T23 are now "very active" compared to the past several years...

We say RN is shrinking. Yes, it is shrinking on paper. But, in number count of active warships, we can say RN is expanding. Very inactive navy with numbers of ship on the list, or slightly smaller navy but more active one. Yes, yes, large in BOTH list AND activity is the goal, but, with "Either/Or", current move is NOT so discouraging.

Astradyne
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 18 Nov 2020, 11:14
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Astradyne »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 May 2022, 14:05
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 May 2022, 13:45 At last, the crew of HMS Argyll walkted into HMS IronDuke.

Almost sure that, HMS Montrose's crew, when she came back to UK for decommissioning in 2023, will walk into HMS Argyll.

twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1531241965483966465
Then, this means, RN is manning only 3 of GP Type-23s (Lancaster, Argyll/Iron Duke, and Montrose).

According to twitter, HMS Lancaster is now visiting Antwerp, and was joining Exercise Joint Warrior at the north, before it.

Argyll/Iron Duke is now in sit-down/stand-up phase.

The 180 x3 = 540 crew can man all 5 T31. Also, with lighter armaments and brand-new equipment, availability and sea-going days of 5 T31s will be at least twice what we see with the 3 GP Type-23s. In principle, RN can have two T31 in Persian Gulf, and another one in NATO fleet, with yet another one ready to deploy to another theater. (while one is in low readiness for basic training etc.) Looking forward to see it.

PS Actually, 4 T31 is more than enough to "replace" the tasks currently covered by the 4 T23 GPs (among which only 3 is manned). And, to my impression, GP T23 are now "very active" compared to the past several years...

We say RN is shrinking. Yes, it is shrinking on paper. But, in number count of active warships, we can say RN is expanding. Very inactive navy with numbers of ship on the list, or slightly smaller navy but more active one. Yes, yes, large in BOTH list AND activity is the goal, but, with "Either/Or", current move is NOT so discouraging.
You seem to be overlooking the fact Montrose has 2 crews which rotate, one of which was Monmouth's ex-crew

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

A clearer example of the error of “double crewing” and it’s cost in terms of a reduced number of escorts would be harder to find. One less vessel with which to prosecute a war! :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Also, as the fwrd-deployed GPs drop straight into the scrap yard, there will be an orderly rotation while their 2nd crews (from the start of the last deployment) train on the new (light :angel: ) frigates.
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Scimitar54 wrote: 30 May 2022, 17:50 A clearer example of the error of “double crewing” and it’s cost in terms of a reduced number of escorts would be harder to find. One less vessel with which to prosecute a war! :mrgreen:
A counter argument is that double crewing is only done for those ships that are advance deployed overseas. If they were single crewed UK based then ships would have to transit back to home dockyard.

So the upside is that RN is able to use one ship permanently deployed to Project Kipion rather than two or three ships to cover the mission in Persian Gulf from UK bases.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 May 2022, 18:12 the upside is that RN is able to use one ship permanently deployed to Project Kipion rather than two or three ships to cover the mission in Persian Gulf from UK bases.
That is one of them... as we progressively (or did someone jump :D the gun) count them down.
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
wargame_insomniac
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Which ship is used for what task is immaterial in Peacetime, but if by so doing, you end up with less ships, then you reduce your deterrent effect to a potential enemy and you definitely prejudice your likely success in Wartime. One ship with its crew can only be in one location at a time. A damaged ship that is “double crewed” deprives you of Two ships, Crewing is a large part of the operating costs of a Warship, hence the drive to reduce the number of crew required on a vessel. It makes no sense whatsoever, to then “load” a ship with 2 x the crew required. The only reasoned and understandable exception to justify “double crewing” is for the SSBNs. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I would think that the Gulf strategy - with more potent vessels visiting 'on the other side of Hormuz' - is not at all badly thought out :geek:
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
wargame_insomniac
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 30 May 2022, 18:35
wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 May 2022, 18:12 the upside is that RN is able to use one ship permanently deployed to Project Kipion rather than two or three ships to cover the mission in Persian Gulf from UK bases.
That is one of them... as we progressively (or did someone jump :D the gun) count them down.
Yes - apologies - I did nt count the MCMS in the Persian Gulf as I was trying to keep my comment focussed on the escorts in the escorts thread.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 May 2022, 21:48 apologies - I did nt count the MCMS in the Persian Gulf as I was trying to keep my comment focussed on the escorts in the escorts thread.
I also was referring to the accelerated withdrawal of the T23GPs
... which make the double-crewing an even more interesting topic; as to when will they roll over to the new frigate class (and how will the double-crewing, as a concept, actually help with that
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Scimitar54 wrote: 30 May 2022, 20:40 Which ship is used for what task is immaterial in Peacetime, but if by so doing, you end up with less ships, then you reduce your deterrent effect to a potential enemy and you definitely prejudice your likely success in Wartime. One ship with its crew can only be in one location at a time. A damaged ship that is “double crewed” deprives you of Two ships, Crewing is a large part of the operating costs of a Warship, hence the drive to reduce the number of crew required on a vessel. It makes no sense whatsoever, to then “load” a ship with 2 x the crew required. The only reasoned and understandable exception to justify “double crewing” is for the SSBNs. :mrgreen:
Then if, for example, you had the Montrose being single crewed but based in the UK, then she would have had to spend time before and after each deployment sailing back and forward between Bahrain and UK. This would have put extra wear and tear on ship. Thus the RN would probably have retired her earlier, leaving even longer with just 12 frigates (if you counted the couple remaining T23's currently going through LIFEX).

At least this way the RN was able to keep Montose focussed on Operation Kipion, and allow RN to rotate the remaining T23's between the other RN missions. Hopefully by the time that RN is ready to retire Montrose, both St Albans and Sutherland will have finished LIFEX, and thus the then remaining 11 T23's will all be fully crewed.

I hate the fact that RN are so constrained by lack of crew that it is having to swap them in and out between vessels, timed for shorter refits and longer LIFEX. Having Montrose being single crewed and UK based is nt going to help on that score.

Post Reply