Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 29 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Dec 2021, 22:01Well the first T31 is expected to be ready in 2028, and the last one probably will be available by approx. 2031 - 2032. So we have around a decade to recruit enough RN staff that hopefully staffing won't be an issue when the 5th one is ready.
Hoping for better recruit and retention rate is good, but not guaranteed. RN was trying hard to improve its manning for long. I'm afraid the current "uplift" is mostly because of COVID.

Regaining of carrier strike, improvement in recruit system, increased threats of Russia and China commonly discussed, will make a good trend. But, I am not optimistic here. A few years ago, RN is manning only 12 out of 19 escorts. Now, the active ships looks not much increased since then (although sea-going days looks a bit improved). Still, RN is manning limited than hull number limited. This is fact. Even if RN/RFA got 1000 more member, as only half of them are on ship, another half on training/promotion/on-land-tasks, it means only 500 more crew. RN needs at least 350 more to re-activate HMS Bulwark? RFA also has some ship in extended readiness.

The NavyLookout article suggested for "more ammunition, more spare-parts, and more engineers" are much more important than "more hull". I think it is very true.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 29 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 21 Dec 2021, 14:55
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 21 Dec 2021, 13:28 <On OPV>
Submarine is very expensive and complicated weapon. If all OPVs are required to handle it in some sense, why not all OPV need to handle super-sonic ASM with Aster30?...
For me we are talking about a number of CAPTAS-1 PODs that can be rotated between OPV and future MCSLVs, along with trained crews. These ships can play a key part in a layered defence when coupled with MRAs, Merlin ASWs, static ASW detectors and ASW frigates. The reason why we aren't talking about AAW defence is because OPVs aren't supposed to be put into high risk areas.
Thanks. The reason why I'm not in favor of ASW capability on OPVs is "because OPVs aren't supposed to be put into high risk areas", as being report to have a submarine threat. This is what I meant. I think there is no difference there, either hyper-sonic ASM or submarine?

By the way, until last year, I was also hoping for CAPTAS-1 equipped River B2s to come. Recently I changed my mind. See below. An ASW USV will do it much better than adding CAPTAS-1 on OPVs. It can be deployed and operated from land, supporting OPV/MCLSV if needed. It can be deployed from OPV/MCLSV, but operated from land. Or, it can be deployed and operated from LSD (or even an OPV/MCLSV). Of course, "ARCIMS SEASense ASW" or alike will need several more years to come. But, CAPTAS-1 POD will also need at least a few years.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mark-pal ... 63232-eA2x

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2935
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 30 times
Been liked: 25 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 14:03 RN needs at least 350 more to re-activate HMS Bulwark?
Getting both LRGs with LPDs would be on my list ahead of forward based lite T31s.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2935
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 30 times
Been liked: 25 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 14:20 ….The reason why I'm not in favor of ASW capability on OPVs is "because OPVs aren't supposed to be put into high risk areas", as being report to have a submarine threat. This is what I meant. I think there is no difference there, either hyper-sonic ASM or submarine?

"ARCIMS SEASense ASW" or alike will need several more years to come. But, CAPTAS-1 POD will also need at least a few years…
Thanks @Donald-san, I can see you point but have a different view. The last thing Submarines want is to be found or to expose themselves unless they are attacking a HVU. An OPV acting as a ASW Platform/Mothership as part of an integrated defence in UK waters is ok in my view - the threat is actually less than standing off against a surface warship that isn’t trying to hide.

I do like the SEASense concept though!
”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

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 104
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 5 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

I have no issue with PODed RB2s and ARCIMS SeaSense for Home Waters and choke point, e.g., Gibraltar, ASW work. As means of detection and trip wire, it's perfectly acceptable... detect sub, call effectors, kill sub... and it releases a frigate from ASW duties...

zanahoria
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by zanahoria »

A predicted 4 to 5 percent reduction in UK GDP will stymie all or most of the proposals in this thread.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2358
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

zanahoria wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 15:59 A predicted 4 to 5 percent reduction in UK GDP will stymie all or most of the proposals in this thread.
The UK economy is forecast to return to pre-pandemic levels by Q1 2022, then grow 4.6% in 2022, 2.2% in 2023, then 1.9% in 2024, so not sure where the reduction is coming from
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

zanahoria
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by zanahoria »

Caribbean wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 17:33
zanahoria wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 15:59 A predicted 4 to 5 percent reduction in UK GDP will stymie all or most of the proposals in this thread.
The UK economy is forecast to return to pre-pandemic levels by Q1 2022, then grow 4.6% in 2022, 2.2% in 2023, then 1.9% in 2024, so not sure where the reduction is coming from
OBR figures quoted in Bloomberg article.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... f=yMmXm5Iy

“Even before Britain completed its split from the EU at the end of 2020, Brexit had reduced the size of the U.K. economy by about 1.5%, according to estimates from the Office for Budget Responsibility. That was due to a fall in business investment and a transfer of economic activity to the EU in anticipation of higher trade barriers.

Since the U.K.-EU free trade deal came into force, the decline in trade volumes means Brexit is on course to cause a 4% reduction in the size of Britain’s economy over the long-run, according to the OBR. That’s in line with its pre-Brexit forecast.

“A loss of 4-5% of GDP is a big deal,” wrote John Springford, deputy director of the CER, in a research note, agreeing with the OBR’s prediction. “Governments everywhere would leap on a policy that would raise GDP by 5%.””

zanahoria
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by zanahoria »

Putting the “blame Brexit” nature of the article to one side, just the effect of the pandemic on the economy must push it into a slowdown, if not outright negative, territory.

UK governments, regardless of political persuasion, rarely increase defence spending. My feeling is that in the current climate they are even less likely to do so.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 78 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 09:29
wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Dec 2021, 22:01 Then we hav to hope that RN Budget has improved enough by then that the term "Fitted For But Not With" is relegated to past tense usage. And that T31's have any potential VLS maxed out, along with a proper main gun fitted.....
Better let the USN know there Constellation class will need a proper gun . If type 31 got say 16 Mk-41 , 8 x NSM and a containerized sonar they would be a good ship
Agree on the latter sentance.

Well there is a BIG difference between what RN and USN intend for Frigates. The USN's equivalent of the RN T26/T31 (and T45) is the Arleigh Burke. The Arligh Burke's are such good all-rounders with appropriate weaponry for all of AAW/ASW/ASuW/shore bombardment roles.

I suspect that the RN equivalent of the USN Constellation Class Frigate is the River B2's, or rather a potential upgraded B3. .

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 78 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 14:03
wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Dec 2021, 22:01Well the first T31 is expected to be ready in 2028, and the last one probably will be available by approx. 2031 - 2032. So we have around a decade to recruit enough RN staff that hopefully staffing won't be an issue when the 5th one is ready.
Hoping for better recruit and retention rate is good, but not guaranteed. RN was trying hard to improve its manning for long. I'm afraid the current "uplift" is mostly because of COVID.

Regaining of carrier strike, improvement in recruit system, increased threats of Russia and China commonly discussed, will make a good trend. But, I am not optimistic here. A few years ago, RN is manning only 12 out of 19 escorts. Now, the active ships looks not much increased since then (although sea-going days looks a bit improved). Still, RN is manning limited than hull number limited. This is fact. Even if RN/RFA got 1000 more member, as only half of them are on ship, another half on training/promotion/on-land-tasks, it means only 500 more crew. RN needs at least 350 more to re-activate HMS Bulwark? RFA also has some ship in extended readiness.

The NavyLookout article suggested for "more ammunition, more spare-parts, and more engineers" are much more important than "more hull". I think it is very true.
What about crews being rotated to the ships on a regular basis? So the crewing model used for HMS Spey and Tamar. Would that allow more regular pattern of work and leave and thus be appealing to wider group of potential recruits than before?

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2555
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

zanahoria wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 18:36
Caribbean wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 17:33
zanahoria wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 15:59 A predicted 4 to 5 percent reduction in UK GDP will stymie all or most of the proposals in this thread.
The UK economy is forecast to return to pre-pandemic levels by Q1 2022, then grow 4.6% in 2022, 2.2% in 2023, then 1.9% in 2024, so not sure where the reduction is coming from
OBR figures quoted in Bloomberg article.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... f=yMmXm5Iy

“Even before Britain completed its split from the EU at the end of 2020, Brexit had reduced the size of the U.K. economy by about 1.5%, according to estimates from the Office for Budget Responsibility. That was due to a fall in business investment and a transfer of economic activity to the EU in anticipation of higher trade barriers.

Since the U.K.-EU free trade deal came into force, the decline in trade volumes means Brexit is on course to cause a 4% reduction in the size of Britain’s economy over the long-run, according to the OBR. That’s in line with its pre-Brexit forecast.

“A loss of 4-5% of GDP is a big deal,” wrote John Springford, deputy director of the CER, in a research note, agreeing with the OBR’s prediction. “Governments everywhere would leap on a policy that would raise GDP by 5%.””
Th UK economy has not shrunk by 4-5% because of Brexit. It has had a temporary reduction due to Covid (as has every other nation) which will have been recovered by early next year (ahead of most other developed nations). The bogus Brexit stats do not say that the UK economy has shrunk by 4-5% because of Brexit, rather, they estimate (based on questionable assumptions) that UK GDP would be 4-5% larger than it currently is, had Brexit not happened.

If we take this to be true (which I do not), then it means that in a non Brexit world, the UK defence budget would be 4-5% larger. That's about £2 billion per year. That's about half of the recent annual increase that the defence budget was recently awarded (£16 billion over 4 years). So a rather pointless statement to make.

Can we keep the nonsense anti-brexit stuff for the Brexit thread, we don't need this one ruined by closed minded one sided factually incorrect guff, too

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 29 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 15:41
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 14:20 ….The reason why I'm not in favor of ASW capability on OPVs is "because OPVs aren't supposed to be put into high risk areas", as being report to have a submarine threat. This is what I meant. I think there is no difference there, either hyper-sonic ASM or submarine?

"ARCIMS SEASense ASW" or alike will need several more years to come. But, CAPTAS-1 POD will also need at least a few years…
Thanks @Donald-san, I can see you point but have a different view. The last thing Submarines want is to be found or to expose themselves unless they are attacking a HVU. An OPV acting as a ASW Platform/Mothership as part of an integrated defence in UK waters is ok in my view - the threat is actually less than standing off against a surface warship that isn’t trying to hide.

I do like the SEASense concept though!
Thanks. If many money is there, equipping OPV with CAPTAS-1 AND purchasing 3-4 sets of ARCIMS SEASense ASW will be good. However, as the resource is limited, I prefer SEASense. As you said, Submarines do not want to attack Low Value Unit, because it will just reveal there location. In that sense, ASW-USV kit is the best choice, I think. Least Value Unit, it is. :D

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 29 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 22:11Well there is a BIG difference between what RN and USN intend for Frigates. The USN's equivalent of the RN T26/T31 (and T45) is the Arleigh Burke. The Arligh Burke's are such good all-rounders with appropriate weaponry for all of AAW/ASW/ASuW/shore bombardment roles.

I suspect that the RN equivalent of the USN Constellation Class Frigate is the River B2's, or rather a potential upgraded B3. .
I'm not sure what you meant. You are talking "relative" equivalent?

From capability point of view,
- T45 and T26 is in the same league as Arleigh Burke DDGs, although a bit smaller and more specialized (AAW or ASW, not "and").
- USN Constellation class closely follows T26, because it is up-armed FREMM.
- T31 is nearly equivalent to US CG's National Security Cutter (Bertholf-class) or USN Freedom/Independence-class. Only slightly better.
- River B2 is in-between Sentinel-class cutter and the Famous-class cutter (Bear-class), more comparable to the latter.
I think this will be a better comparison?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2358
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

zanahoria wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 18:49 Putting the “blame Brexit” nature of the article to one side, just the effect of the pandemic on the economy must push it into a slowdown, if not outright negative, territory.

UK governments, regardless of political persuasion, rarely increase defence spending. My feeling is that in the current climate they are even less likely to do so.
I would have said that the "blame Brexit" nature of the article is it's entire reason for being written :problem:

Unfortunately, I can't find the figures that the article quotes on the OBR website (I'm not saying that they didn't say it, just that it I can't find it). However, the OBR, the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies,) and pretty much every independent forecaster does say similar things about the UK economy and it prospects for the immediate future (i.e. return to pre-COVID levels by the end of this year/ Q1 2022, followed by strong growth over 2022, then falls back to the marginally higher than normal levels of growth of 1.9% for 2023 through to 2025. In the long term (50 years), the UK is expected to stay as a G10 economy, but with some other current G10 economies being pushed out by up-and-coming E7 economies (India and China amongst them). If you have a look at the IFS website, there is a graph of UK real GDP from 2008 onwards, which shows no discernible fall in GDP between 2016 and the start of the pandemic in late 2019/ early 2020, putting the article's claim in some doubt.

One significant issue that the OBR does point to, however, is that the Government's tax take has increased by some £50b per annum as a result of recent tax changes, with £30b earmarked for additional spending and £20b for debt repayment - the deficit is also falling as Covid-related costs start to fall. Of the $30b earmarked for spending, around £18b is hypothecated on the NHS catch-up and future Social Care plan, with around £12b being available for other spending. Adding just one billion a year to acquisition of new equipment (i.e £350m pa for the RN) could improve the naval build rate (maybe allowing the build of an additional T26 and T31 within the currently planned timeframes) and improve T31 equipment levels. Similar programme accelerations could be achieved in the other two services.

However, as you say, UK Governments tend towards "bread and circuses" spending, rather than the essentials of national preservation.

Perhaps they need a refresher course on the consequences of failing to attend to the state of the "legions".
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3191
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 18 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 12:11
Lord Jim wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 01:18 …What it recommends though are more mid to low capability platforms like the Rivers and T-31/32…
What it says is:

The escort fleet needs to double in size by acquiring more low-end capability to carry out low end tasks, alongside ships capable of carrying out the Navy’s high-end warfighting commitments.


To me it means more lower end OPV/Sloops and more war fighting frigates. A marginal uplift in funds could easily mean that the RN ends up with 24 fully armed T45/T26/T31 warships by the mid 2030s. A similar fleet of 16 lower end Rivers/MCSLVs is also achievable in the current budget. This gives the RN a solid forward presence coupled with a significant war fighting capability.

If there is any money left, I would be looking to improve the RN war fighting capabilities in the Littoral Zone. This is where I would go for a UK “Buyan” equivalent, on this would include a larger caliber gun for NFGS.
What it says is double the escort fleet no talk of OPV.s or MCSLV's. If we take that to mean doubling from 18 to 36 in a quick turn around then the way forward is

Add 3 more Type 26 for a class of 11
Add 5 more Type 31 for a class of 10
Add a class of 6 117 meter Leander class under the Type 32 banner
Build 9 type 83's to replace the Type 45's with the first T-45 being replaced by the forth T-83

Type 26 = 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 24 Mk-41 , 48 x CAMM
Type 31 = 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 x Mk-41 , 8 x NSM
Type 32 = 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 1 x Phalanx , 12 x CAMM , 4 x NSM
Type 83 = 1 x 127mm , 4 x 40mm , 1 x Phalanx , 96 VLS Mk-41

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2935
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 30 times
Been liked: 25 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 Dec 2021, 11:39 What it says is double the escort fleet no talk of OPV.s or MCSLV's.
True, but my reading (may be mistaken) was that really they are referring to a group of roles / standing commitments that need to be covered and they used "Escorts" as an umbrella term for all the ships that are required. I appreciate my view differs from some in that I would include OPV's and MCSLV's under this umbrella if fitted out to the required standard.
”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

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 78 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Dec 2021, 08:14
wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Dec 2021, 22:11Well there is a BIG difference between what RN and USN intend for Frigates. The USN's equivalent of the RN T26/T31 (and T45) is the Arleigh Burke. The Arligh Burke's are such good all-rounders with appropriate weaponry for all of AAW/ASW/ASuW/shore bombardment roles.

I suspect that the RN equivalent of the USN Constellation Class Frigate is the River B2's, or rather a potential upgraded B3. .
I'm not sure what you meant. You are talking "relative" equivalent?

From capability point of view,
- T45 and T26 is in the same league as Arleigh Burke DDGs, although a bit smaller and more specialized (AAW or ASW, not "and").
- USN Constellation class closely follows T26, because it is up-armed FREMM.
- T31 is nearly equivalent to US CG's National Security Cutter (Bertholf-class) or USN Freedom/Independence-class. Only slightly better.
- River B2 is in-between Sentinel-class cutter and the Famous-class cutter (Bear-class), more comparable to the latter.
I think this will be a better comparison?
My reply to Tempest414 was specifially on his reply to my earlier comment that I had hoped "And that T31's have any potential VLS maxed out, along with a proper main gun fitted" - he used the example of the USN Constellation Class which are due also to have the same 57mm main gun as T31.

Yes I agree with you that T45/T26/Arleigh Burke are in similar broad quality bracket. as you said being specialised in AAW / ASW / all-rounder appropriately.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 78 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 Dec 2021, 11:39 What it says is double the escort fleet no talk of OPV.s or MCSLV's. If we take that to mean doubling from 18 to 36 in a quick turn around then the way forward is

Add 3 more Type 26 for a class of 11
Add 5 more Type 31 for a class of 10
Add a class of 6 117 meter Leander class under the Type 32 banner
Build 9 type 83's to replace the Type 45's with the first T-45 being replaced by the forth T-83

Type 26 = 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 24 Mk-41 , 48 x CAMM
Type 31 = 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 x Mk-41 , 8 x NSM
Type 32 = 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 1 x Phalanx , 12 x CAMM , 4 x NSM
Type 83 = 1 x 127mm , 4 x 40mm , 1 x Phalanx , 96 VLS Mk-41
That's a lovely fantasy but unlikely to ever be reality. You have added a dozen ships including three more T28 and three more T83. What are they going to cost.....

You keep on talking about 9*T83's. If they were a like for like replacement for T45's then they would have been labelled T46/T47 etc. The fact that they are labelled as T83 means that they will be bigger, have more VLS missiles than T45, and probably be the RN equivalent of USN Ticonderoga class.

Getting 6*T83 would be great as it would replace the T45 one-for-one. But my fear is that RN plans them to be the equivalent of Ticonderoga with one per CSG etc and thus order maybe four*T83. That would give us the Ticonderoga without having an Arleigh Burke equivalent (who themselves have a 90-96 cells VLS for AAW).

zanahoria
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by zanahoria »

Thanks for the reply & info. dmerefield is correct to voice concern over derailing the thread (not my intention - I’m just skeptical of the govt doing what is needed to make the armed forces a credible deterrent) so I’ll leave it there.
Caribbean wrote: 23 Dec 2021, 08:44 Perhaps they need a refresher course on the consequences of failing to attend to the state of the "legions".
Do they ever!

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2555
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

zanahoria wrote: 24 Dec 2021, 05:32 Thanks for the reply & info. dmerefield is correct to voice concern over derailing the thread (not my intention - I’m just skeptical of the govt doing what is needed to make the armed forces a credible deterrent) so I’ll leave it there.
Caribbean wrote: 23 Dec 2021, 08:44 Perhaps they need a refresher course on the consequences of failing to attend to the state of the "legions".
Do they ever!
You've every right to be skeptical on the matter, every Government in my lifetime has been poor on defence. We need to do better. Hopefully, the aforementioned budget increase will be a turning point....

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3191
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 18 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 23 Dec 2021, 18:10
Tempest414 wrote: 23 Dec 2021, 11:39 What it says is double the escort fleet no talk of OPV.s or MCSLV's. If we take that to mean doubling from 18 to 36 in a quick turn around then the way forward is

Add 3 more Type 26 for a class of 11
Add 5 more Type 31 for a class of 10
Add a class of 6 117 meter Leander class under the Type 32 banner
Build 9 type 83's to replace the Type 45's with the first T-45 being replaced by the forth T-83

Type 26 = 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 24 Mk-41 , 48 x CAMM
Type 31 = 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 x Mk-41 , 8 x NSM
Type 32 = 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 1 x Phalanx , 12 x CAMM , 4 x NSM
Type 83 = 1 x 127mm , 4 x 40mm , 1 x Phalanx , 96 VLS Mk-41
That's a lovely fantasy but unlikely to ever be reality. You have added a dozen ships including three more T28 and three more T83. What are they going to cost.....

You keep on talking about 9*T83's. If they were a like for like replacement for T45's then they would have been labelled T46/T47 etc. The fact that they are labelled as T83 means that they will be bigger, have more VLS missiles than T45, and probably be the RN equivalent of USN Ticonderoga class.

Getting 6*T83 would be great as it would replace the T45 one-for-one. But my fear is that RN plans them to be the equivalent of Ticonderoga with one per CSG etc and thus order maybe four*T83. That would give us the Ticonderoga without having an Arleigh Burke equivalent (who themselves have a 90-96 cells VLS for AAW).
Firstly everything is fantasy until it is reality the above is a balanced escort fleet for what we face now as for cost the real fantasy is HMG thinking it can carry on spending 2% GDP in the face of the facts

Type 45 replacement can not be allowed to become a Cruiser the fact is Type 45 should now have 64 VLS = 48 A-50 and 16 Mk-41 which could allow 122 missiles to be carried if CAMM were quad packed . Plus if the fleet is to grow in a balanced fleet we need at least 8 destroyers

the other way is to build 4 x Cruisers with 90+ VLS and 6 x AAW frigates with 56 VLS based on the A-140

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3191
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 18 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The other way of increasing the RN's numbers and fighting would be to go for

9 x type 26
6 x type 31
6 x type 32
8 x type 34
4 x type 83

Type 26 as is and type 31 fitted with 24 x VLS

Type 32 to be a full fat new IH class fitted with 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 56 x VLS , TAS
Type 34 to be a 117 meter Leander fitted with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 1 x Phalanx , 24 CAMM , TAS
Type 83 to be a Cruiser fitted with 1 x 127mm , 4 x 57mm , 100 VLS , TAS

serge750
Member
Posts: 841
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I wouldn't mind if the T45 replacement is cruiser size ( 10000t + ) as long as we get a 1 for 1 replacement - i.e. 6 - but i would prefer an increase & getting at least 8 comparable sized replacements with at least 24 CAMM & 48 aster to grow the numbers of the fleet

Also if the T32 are a full fat version of the T31 would be a good thing - i would be happy with 24 mk41

Would be good to squeeze another 1 or 2 T26 in for their ASW prowess even if they only got 16 x mk 41 to save money as long as they keep their 48 x CAMM ( even if only the batch 1 got 24 x mk 41 VLS & the follow on batches got 16 ) use the B1 for the original GCS, then all the others primarily as ASW carrier escorts

If we got 117m leander type with 24 x CAMM & 57mm hanger etc, i agree to grow the fleet that would be a cheaper option if there was a we bit of a budget increase for the extra crews

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 29 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Cross post from RNZN page. Their ANZAC frigate is, for me, typical best "light frigates".

We can see SeaSentor ship torpedo defense decoy launcher on top of the hanger, 20 CAMM tubes, MASS chaff/flare launcher in the bridge wing, and 4 tubes of floating decoy launcher tube before the bridge. Te Kaha/Mana was added with new electric warefre kit as well. Hope that all these level of equipments be added to RN T31.
From RNZN facebook site. Can clearly see the 20 CAMM mushrooms covering the then 16-cell equivalent surface (although only 8 was there).

To my understanding, CAMM penetrates only one deck, relieving another whole deck. Even so, I think the mushroom launchers shall better be more dense....

...Image

Post Reply