Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

CraigL wrote: 28 May 2023, 22:04 Why not the Absalon class?
Good question! It’s the obvious choice given the T31’s lineage but there are a number of reasons why I don’t think it’s the best choice for RN when funds are tight.

Absalon is an older design than Iver Huitfeldt so it’s likely the T32 would be a A140 with Absalon features to save a complete redesign. Adding a compartmentalisated flex deck to an A140 isn’t straightforward due to the engine room configuration on the A140.

You can see the change in deck levels in the MRCV to mitigate some of these issues but the ultimate outcome is a vessel with high centre of gravity with all the potential stability issues that may arise. The ASF has a much lower centre of gravity.

If the T31 program ends up costing £2bn it’s safe to say that a T32 based on T31 but with Absalon enhancements will eventually cost closer to £3bn for five hulls.

That £3bn would build an additional 3x T31’s plus 5x Vard 7 313 with £500m remaining to add a TAS to all T31’s. A much better outcome IMO.

The Vard 7 313 also has many advantages for the FCF.
BDB712AF-7856-4B04-95DD-FB68B51E8615.jpeg
The Flight deck has two landing spots and the hanger can embark 4 medium helicopters.
174A9B1D-9917-4C6B-827A-C6225D603F0C.jpeg
982B6569-E4DA-4155-B690-E0D2F0475793.jpeg
The vessel contains a NATO Level II hospital facility.
0A5EFB40-F7B3-46CD-9A31-D013D6B52C2A.jpeg
Two 15m craft (CB90/LCVP) and two 11m RHIBs can be deployed via davits.

The vehicle deck could be further compartmentalised and a stern ramp added to increase versatility.
E88645AE-E428-422C-BD56-384745970C86.jpeg
AC5D00B7-3182-47F5-8B7C-3A2B29F5B803.jpeg
E49BD5E3-A421-41CD-BDF1-098980F087B2.jpeg

The 20t deck crane adds further versatility and with accommodation for 300 it ticks all the boxes IMO.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
serge750

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5555
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 28 May 2023, 17:34
new guy wrote: 28 May 2023, 14:34 The future for T32 will likely be IMO as turbulent as the fiasco of T26 procurement….
It doesn’t need to be.

Firstly RN must confirm that it really needs a Frigate with all of that capability packed into it.

The simple fact is that only so much can be fitted into a vessel with a beam around 20m. The idea that you are going to provide accommodation for a company of RM plus flight personnel for multiple helos plus extensive medical facilities plus crew for all of the off-board systems concurrently on a 140mX21m Frigate is not realistic. It just doesn’t fit if maintaining an acceptable centre of gravity and all those spacious mission areas make escort levels of damage control very problematic.

However increase the beam to 22m-24m and drop the escort level of damage control and things change rapidly. However the trade off is the vessel will go slower and will sink much faster if hit.

That’s the conundrum and only RN can decide which route to take. Funding the program is secondary to that decision.

However, RN needs a Littoral Enabler for the FCF so what are the options?

IMO the T32 should be downgraded to a large and flexible OPV design which should be escorted by fully fledged T31 GP’s to keep costs to reasonable levels.

Option 1: BAE Adaptable Strike Frigate
£3.5bn for 5 hulls
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/produc ... ke-frigate


Option 2: Vard 7 313
£1.25bn for 5 hulls
https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-313/



Option 3: Vard 9 05
£750m for 5 hulls
https://www.vard.com/ship-design/vard-9 ... -optimized


I don’t think RN will get £3.5bn for the T32 and if they do it really should be spent elsewhere.

However, something around £1.25bn could be possible and therefore, IMO, a UK optimised Vard 7 313 is the best option. Add a 57mm, 2x40mm, Artisan or NS110 plus CAMM via PODs and start construction around 2026 at Rosyth. If RN want an extra batch of T31s built at Rosyth between 2026/2032 for an additional £1.5bn then H&W Appledore can build the Vards anytime.

If funding is very tight then the T32 capability requirement should be merged with the LSV program and RN should procure 8x Vard 9 05 vessels fully optimised for Littoral taskings. Set the combined budget at £1.2bn for 8 hulls and let H&W Belfast/Appledore get on with it.

There is no need for RN’s FCF Littoral Enabler program to be “turbulent” if the requirement can be combined with a realistic budget. After the success of the T31 procurement hopefully continued pragmatism prevails.
I don't think the Vard 7-313 needs a 57mm and NS110 or Artisan I think it would be fine with SAAB Giraffe 1X and 2 x 40mm as said CAMM & Spear could be POD based the Vard would be HICAP OPV and not a Frigate and the price should be set at 130 million for this type of ship

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 29 May 2023, 08:57
I don't think the Vard 7-313 needs a 57mm and NS110 or Artisan I think it would be fine with SAAB Giraffe 1X and 2 x 40mm as said CAMM & Spear could be POD based the Vard would be HICAP OPV and not a Frigate and the price should be set at 130 million for this type of ship
I think the main point is that RN can have this capability regardless of the size of the budget.

If HMT release £3bn, £1.25bn or even just £750m the five vessels with mothership & littoral enabling capabilities can be procured.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

What’s wrong with simply procuring a cheap and cheerful Stuft / PSV to launch the drones, escorted by a frigate. Why try to do two in one?

Genuine question
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 3):
donald_of_tokyonew guyserge750

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Strikes me that there needs to be a radical change in the way the RN sees ship building. Yes, it is critical that there are well laid longer term plans for capital ships and tier one escorts, but there needs to be a more agile production line that is able to react to requirements quicker.

I’m not saying the Vard or other designs are right, but ships like these could be modified to RN standards and built under licence in a fraction of the time and cost it takes currently.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SD67 wrote: 29 May 2023, 09:45Why try to do two in one?
The T32 is more like three in one.

1. Off-board systems
2. FCF
3. Frigate

It’s a big ask for a modestly sized vessel.

The speed of the PSVs is one of the negatives if a patrol capability is required.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 29 May 2023, 09:54 I’m not saying the Vard or other designs are right, but ships like these could be modified to RN standards and built under licence in a fraction of the time and cost it takes currently.
Completely agree.

Using familiar hull forms Vard is able to rapidly tailor each vessel to each navies requirements and has a long track record of doing so.

The technology in the T32 isn’t revolutionary, it’s trying to squeeze it into a Frigate that’s pretty novel.

Procurement needn’t take a decade. As said RN could do this rapidly if required.

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 »

Sorry to interrupt. Great movie, it is.

These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 3):
Ron5serge750new guy

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 29 May 2023, 10:24
Repulse wrote: 29 May 2023, 09:54 I’m not saying the Vard or other designs are right, but ships like these could be modified to RN standards and built under licence in a fraction of the time and cost it takes currently.
Completely agree.

Using familiar hull forms Vard is able to rapidly tailor each vessel to each navies requirements and has a long track record of doing so.

The technology in the T32 isn’t revolutionary, it’s trying to squeeze it into a Frigate that’s pretty novel.

Procurement needn’t take a decade. As said RN could do this rapidly if required.
First unit set to come in 2032, so about 4 years against T26 no.1 and T31 no.1 FOC

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 »

I have no appetite for T32. Actually, I think it shall NOT come into reality. RN and UK military force has many many things to do, before any sort of T32 be built. If RN needs "more escorts", it shall be 2-3 more, not 5 more, simply because RN cannot man them.

My view....

If £1.6Bn be there (in 2023 currency),
- just order 2 more T26. RN needs "only" 300 more crew. Possible, but not easy.
- with the same money, it can be 5 "modestly armed T31", but in this case RN needs 600 more crew. No hope.

If £1Bn be there (in 2023 currency),
- just order 1 more T26, and use the remaining £200M to uparm something. RN needs 150 more crew (and a few, for "uparming")
- with the same money, it can be 3 "modestly armed T31", but in this case RN needs 360 more crew. Possible, but not easy.

If £0.8Bn be there (in 2023 currency),
- just order 1 more T26. RN needs 150 more crew
- or order 2 more "modestly armed T31", needing 240 more crew, and use the remaining £200M to uparm something (and a few crew, for "uparming").

A few more E-7, a few more P-8A, 8-12 SeaGuadian UAV (or 12-16 Mojave UAV), 3-sets of 2-hull (6-hulls total) ARCIMS ASW "SeaSense" system for choke point ASW, are much more attractive for me.

And even this idea only come after buying significant number of, CAMM, Aster30, NSM, SeaVenom, LMM, 57mm ALaMo rounds, and all other ammo.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
serge750wargame_insomniac

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 »

I like Vard 7 313. But, I like it as "a part of" MRSS. If you look at RNZN MRV Canterburry, it is pretty much the same-purposed vessel. Integrated Review refresh can be depressing.

For example, if 1+1 LPDs, 3 LSDs, 3 River B1 OPVs, if replaced with 3 LSD-mod and 3 Vard 7 313, it is a not so bad.

One LSD for LRG(N).
One LSD for LRG(S), at Persian Gulf.
One LSD in long-maintenance/extended readiness.

One Vard 7 313 to replace WIGS River B2.
One Vard 7 313 to replace Gib River B2.
One Vard 7 313 in long-maintenance and seamanship training.

The two River B2 will be the "home fleet OPVs". Then, the 2 River B2 now in Indo-Pacific can remain there.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 29 May 2023, 15:53 simply because RN cannot man them.
Agreed but is a headcount increase actually part of the T32 proposal?

If so is this one of the reasons why the T32 program is deemed unaffordable?

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Norwegian navy looking for future frigates (6), UK in listing of potential partners.
https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Amerika ... 90523.html
On the UK side they could get
A) relatively expensive but ASW capable T26. £6bn
B) T31 Cheaper and par ASW relatively competent dependent on configuration. Norway probably wants more however. £2.7bn
C) wildcard

Otherhand;
. Had talks with other European allies, such as Germany with F127
. USN expects to get 60 constellation class frigates, this will be notable to Norway.
. Fact is there are much more likely routes than the UK.

But if T31 did get the deal, that would mean:
5x T31, confirmed
2x Indonesian adaptation
3x Polish adaptation
6x Norway with potential of some built here - Unlikely
2x NZ with all being here - Arrowhead 140 good candidate is the scheme of things but yet still unlikely
5x T31B2- Unlikely in whatever proportion, be that number of +frigates or any at all.

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: 29 May 2023, 16:01 One Vard 7 313 to replace WIGS River B2.
One Vard 7 313 to replace Gib River B2.
These two hulls will "join" LRG(N) and LRG(S), (individually, or even both) when needed. (just forgot to mention)

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 »

Just a few comments to add..
new guy wrote: 29 May 2023, 16:17 5x T31, confirmed
2x Indonesian adaptation
3x Polish adaptation
Indonesian bid is originating directly from (long lasting) Danish effort, and Babcock shares/took over them. Polish ones are, as I understand, Babcock's win.
6x Norway with potential of some built here - Unlikely
As they need ASW, adoption of Arrowhead will depend on the performance of "ASW modification of Absalon and Iver Hultfeldt classes".
2x NZ with all being here - Arrowhead 140 good candidate is the scheme of things but yet still unlikely
I think approaching to NZ now is very important. As Babcock has its own dockyard in NZ Auckland, Babcock must think of how to built part of the ship there. Or, as I stated, UK shall offer selling 2nd-hand T31 to RNZN very cheap. And build UK's own "replacement" hulls, with Mk.41 VLS installed from build (which is surely cheaper than adding it in refit).
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Clive F

zavve
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 24 May 2022, 19:36
Sweden

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by zavve »

new guy wrote: 29 May 2023, 16:17 6x Norway with potential of some built here - Unlikely
The Norweigan frigates will likely be built in another country, with some modules built in Norway as the Fridtjof Nansen class was. But IMO T26 is more of an option, the Fridtjof Nansen class was designed as an ASW frigate that carries a TAS (Captas II) and is around the cost of a T26 when adjusted for inflation.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

zavve wrote: 29 May 2023, 17:04
new guy wrote: 29 May 2023, 16:17 6x Norway with potential of some built here - Unlikely
The Norweigan frigates will likely be built in another country, with some modules built in Norway as the Fridtjof Nansen class was. But IMO T26 is more of an option, the Fridtjof Nansen class was designed as an ASW frigate that carries a TAS (Captas II) and is around the cost of a T26 when adjusted for inflation.
At around £800m for the very best ASW Frigate in the world it really doesn’t seem that expensive anymore.

The design costs have been paid and the production line is hot.

Will a FREMM really be that much cheaper?

zavve
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 24 May 2022, 19:36
Sweden

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by zavve »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 29 May 2023, 17:12 Will a FREMM really be that much cheaper?
A US-built FFG-62 would be around the same price as a UK-built T26. I think the most likely to least likely are as follows, 1: F127, 2: FFG-62, 3: T26: 4: ASWF, 5: F110, T31 & FDI.
These users liked the author zavve for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Cue the more Admirals than ships jokes…
4B50B45C-4B8A-4581-AFBB-9FF8E520F351.jpeg


Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5555
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I have been saying for a few years now that the Type 23's were shot this I know because a good friend and EX fellow junior officer I served with told me after he moved to MBDA
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5555
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I for one just can't see a Type 26 being built for 800 million this being said if Westminster's refit is canned we could see a host of others go the same way this could mean having to speed up the Type 26 build and add 1 more ship to make the class 9 and with all type 31's being in the water by 2028/29 two more could be added

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 »

If yes, I guess it is now the time to discuss many aspects.

1: I will propose to keep Westminster, while disband 2 of the 3 remaining T23GP to earn money. In this case, "up-arming River B2" can come into mind.

Disbanding 2 T23GP will provide 360-400 free crew. Shift 150 of them to "partly man the 3 Bays" (changing the RFA/RN crew ratio). This will enable RFA to activate Fort Victoria. Another 210-250 might be filling ALL the T23ASW's coming back from LIFEX, and increasing the crew-size of River B2 from 40 to 50. It is, 10 more each, 15 for "x1.5 over-manning rotation", and "for 5 hulls" means 75.

This will come with up-arming River B2 OPVs (which can compensate T23GP reduction in number).

2: Another idea will be to accept disbanding Westminster, but introducing 3-sets of "2 ARCIMS-USV hulls with SeaSense ASW team". These SeaSense systems will be filling the Irish sea (operated from Belfast?), and north-North sea (from Shetland islands?), and another one deploying somewhere else. The system can be operated more than 100 km away from their port.

Many other idea may come in....

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5555
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 May 2023, 10:32
If yes, I guess it is now the time to discuss many aspects.

1: I will propose to keep Westminster, while disband 2 of the 3 remaining T23GP to earn money. In this case, "up-arming River B2" can come into mind.

Disbanding 2 T23GP will provide 360-400 free crew. Shift 150 of them to "partly man the 3 Bays" (changing the RFA/RN crew ratio). This will enable RFA to activate Fort Victoria. Another 210-250 might be filling ALL the T23ASW's coming back from LIFEX, and increasing the crew-size of River B2 from 40 to 50. It is, 10 more each, 15 for "x1.5 over-manning rotation", and "for 5 hulls" means 75.

This will come with up-arming River B2 OPVs (which can compensate T23GP reduction in number).

2: Another idea will be to accept disbanding Westminster, but introducing 3-sets of "2 ARCIMS-USV hulls with SeaSense ASW team". These SeaSense systems will be filling the Irish sea (operated from Belfast?), and north-North sea (from Shetland islands?), and another one deploying somewhere else. The system can be operated more than 100 km away from their port.

Many other idea may come in....
The bigger question is what are the rest of the T-23's like
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 3):
Repulsedonald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Adding some more capabilities to the B2 is the right thing to do regardless.

I would however, move the crew to get the second LPD in place ahead of taking over RFA ships. By doing this a Bay class can go, which means that RFA crewing issues are alleviated and it’s better aligned to the future.
”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

Post Reply