Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Dahedd
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

If we need more AAW vessels & we get a reduced number of T83 the obvious answer is a second batch of T31 at a proper spec similar to the "full fat" Iver Huitfeldts. Either as T31b2 or as the T32.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 25 Dec 2021, 05:25 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
This is why I believe type 31 will come in to service with 24 CAMM under the GFE part of the contract and why Type 32 will be a batch 2 Type 31 with more improvements

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Dahedd wrote: 26 Dec 2021, 00:26 If we need more AAW vessels & we get a reduced number of T83 the obvious answer is a second batch of T31 at a proper spec similar to the "full fat" Iver Huitfeldts. Either as T31b2 or as the T32.
So with the DSC saying we need to double the escorts we have now ( which is 18 ). With the type 31 contract and the talk of 5 type 32 six of the 18 ships needed are in the pipe line i.e the last Type 31 and 5 T-32's leaving 12 more ships to build I still like the idea of building 8 x 117 meter Leander's leaving 4 more ships to build .

so maybe the answer is to try for an escort fleet of 30 and not 36 looking like

6 x Type 45
9 x type 26
6 x Type 31
6 x Type 32 ( IH style AAW frigates )
5 x Type 33 ( 117 meter leander's )

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

With the planned T-32 the Government can happily say they are planning to increase the size of the Royal Navy's escort fleet. What the DSC says and what actually happens are usually never the same and given the timescales involved and the effect of the value of the Defence Budget continuing to wain verses the cost of new equipment, if we have even 23 ships by 2040 I will be very surprised.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1231
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Tempest414 wrote: 26 Dec 2021, 12:20
Dahedd wrote: 26 Dec 2021, 00:26 If we need more AAW vessels & we get a reduced number of T83 the obvious answer is a second batch of T31 at a proper spec similar to the "full fat" Iver Huitfeldts. Either as T31b2 or as the T32.
So with the DSC saying we need to double the escorts we have now ( which is 18 ). With the type 31 contract and the talk of 5 type 32 six of the 18 ships needed are in the pipe line i.e the last Type 31 and 5 T-32's leaving 12 more ships to build I still like the idea of building 8 x 117 meter Leander's leaving 4 more ships to build .

so maybe the answer is to try for an escort fleet of 30 and not 36 looking like

6 x Type 45
9 x type 26
6 x Type 31
6 x Type 32 ( IH style AAW frigates )
5 x Type 33 ( 117 meter leander's )
Select committees exist purely to give backbenchers something to do that makes them feel important. They have zero authority and next to zero influence.

SD67
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 7 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

If that were the case then you may as well abolish parliament. A grilling in front of the relevant select committee is the only practical way of holding government (both ministers and officials) to account. When else are questions going to be asked? Witness the recent change of Foreign secretary, following a pretty ordinary performance explaining the Kabul fiasco

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I agree with Richard.

It was a dreadfully written report, if you watched any of it they started with the premise of more ships and rather than asking the question, what is the threat that the navy is trying to counter, what are the options for dealing with it and which option is it pursing and is that realistic. They could also of asked what the planning assumptions are for concurrent operations there duration and at what scale these are to be run at.

Instead they preceded on the usual waffle of more ships more ships to every person they interviewed including to the first sea lord who responded with he had adequate ships to meet the governments mandated tasks.

Also it also add absolutely nothing to the debate other than generating hot air if you make such suggesting without explicitly stating where your getting the cash from to buy, man and run them. The tax burden on the individual is at its highest since the war so more money for defence will need to come from cutting another department so which one and by how much. Or if it’s from within the defence what programs or services go to pay for it.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

RichardIC wrote: 26 Dec 2021, 19:49
Tempest414 wrote: 26 Dec 2021, 12:20
Dahedd wrote: 26 Dec 2021, 00:26 If we need more AAW vessels & we get a reduced number of T83 the obvious answer is a second batch of T31 at a proper spec similar to the "full fat" Iver Huitfeldts. Either as T31b2 or as the T32.
So with the DSC saying we need to double the escorts we have now ( which is 18 ). With the type 31 contract and the talk of 5 type 32 six of the 18 ships needed are in the pipe line i.e the last Type 31 and 5 T-32's leaving 12 more ships to build I still like the idea of building 8 x 117 meter Leander's leaving 4 more ships to build .

so maybe the answer is to try for an escort fleet of 30 and not 36 looking like

6 x Type 45
9 x type 26
6 x Type 31
6 x Type 32 ( IH style AAW frigates )
5 x Type 33 ( 117 meter leander's )
Select committees exist purely to give backbenchers something to do that makes them feel important. They have zero authority and next to zero influence.
I would agree they have zero authority however I would say they may hold some if mostly indirect influence
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Jensy

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

So as asked moved over here from the River class thread

So with the navy as it is and with the current contracts we will see

6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 5 x T-31 , 5 x RB2's

So if there is 2 billion to spend on type 32 what could we do different. well for me as said on the River class thread we could build 3 extra T-31's for say 1.2 billion bring the class to 8 ships and spend the remaining 800 million on 4 River B3's at 180 million per ship these new B3's being laid out like so

110 meters , 1 x 57mm , 1 x 40mm , 4 x 12.7mm , Low cost 3D radar , good CMS , Mission bay capable of carrying 1 x helicopter and 2 x MCM USV's or 4 x USV's and a UAV , Crew 40 plus 60 extra mission crew

This could allow for a fleet of

6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 ,8 x T-31 , 4 x RB-3 , 5 x RB-2

Deployed like so
Home Fleet ( Atlantic , Med , High North )

6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 4 x T-31 , 5 x RB-2

EoS Fleet ( Gulf , Indo- Pacific )

4 x T-31's , 4 x RB-3
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The latest World Naval Review has a good summary of the five core capabilities laid out in the IR2021:
1) CASD
2) North Atlantic - protecting the security of the British Isles and surrounding waters
3) UK Carrier Strike Group - available for global deployment
4) Littoral Strike - high readiness amphibious capabilities based around specialist ships
5) Forward Deployed Naval Assets - small number of warships strategically based around the globe.

I would say the escort requirements and assets for (1) and (3) are pretty well defined and known.

(1) requires SSBNs plus MCM (delivered by future shore based unmanned Mine-Hunting Capability), force protection from smaller RM patrol boats, and a part-time ASW Towed Array Patrol ship drawn from the force delivering (2).

(3) requires four deployed escorts 2 AAW + 2 ASW - working on a 1:3 basis as these will be globally deployed it means a total of 6 AAW plus 6 ASW frigates.

The other capabilities for me a less well defined.

(2) of course covers fisheries plus the ability to respond to expected threats to the UK EEZ plus escorting transiting ships from non-allied states. What is not clear on how active the RN wants to be in the North Atlantic in terms of not only surveillance but also presence, and also how far North does the North Atlantic stretch to. It feels to me that the current plans of 2 OPVs, allocation of 2 ASW Frigates (along with limited MPAs and SSNs) is a stretch to do anything more than cover the immediate UK EEZ and CASD (1).

(4) is still being defined. However if the FCF concept is numerous small forward deployed units, then the platforms to support them need to also match this numerous, small forward deployed structure. Rather than try and pair these ships with Escorts, would it be better that they are "self-escorting" having the (self-defence and even offensive) capabilities as the requirements define; though in the context that any major operation will require a CSG. What is still missing for me is the requirement for moving an Army Brigade, though given that it is likely to be a major event then allocating one of the two CSGs as escorts is probably ok.

(5) again is still being defined in detail. The strategic locations are the key BOTs, the Gulf plus presence in the Indo Pacific regions. I would also add that there is a requirement to facilitate the deployment of (3) and (4) through surveying and local intelligence and training. OPVs for FIPS, APT(N) and Gibraltar seem to be a good fit when coupled with an South Atlantic Ice Patrol Ship and RFA assets as required for HADR. A forward deployed frigate (I would say ASW is more important than area AAW coverage) and a couple of MCM motherships should be sufficient for the Gulf. Assuming that the requirements (outside of 3 & 4) for the Eastern Med and Indo Pacific regions are surveying and local intelligence and training, then as discussed elsewhere probably 3-4 enhanced OPVs/Sloops plus a couple of Survey ships should be sufficient.

Assuming that the self-escorting approach of 4 is correct, then a minimum properly equipped core surface fleet of the following would be:

6 AAW Destroyers, 10 (edit) ASW Frigates, 12 OPVs/Sloops/Survey (HCP) ships plus a handful of low end MCM motherships.

The question is though, what additionally is required to support the UK's requirements in the North Atlantic, which is ultimately aimed at countering Russia...

Edit: Hint is that I think that given the Russian fleet composition and geography we need more ASW assets that can navigate cold / icy seas...
”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: 141
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 82 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 14:11 So as asked moved over here from the River class thread

So with the navy as it is and with the current contracts we will see

6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 5 x T-31 , 5 x RB2's

So if there is 2 billion to spend on type 32 what could we do different. well for me as said on the River class thread we could build 3 extra T-31's for say 1.2 billion bring the class to 8 ships and spend the remaining 800 million on 4 River B3's at 180 million per ship these new B3's being laid out like so

110 meters , 1 x 57mm , 1 x 40mm , 4 x 12.7mm , Low cost 3D radar , good CMS , Mission bay capable of carrying 1 x helicopter and 2 x MCM USV's or 4 x USV's and a UAV , Crew 40 plus 60 extra mission crew

This could allow for a fleet of

6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 ,8 x T-31 , 4 x RB-3 , 5 x RB-2

Deployed like so
Home Fleet ( Atlantic , Med , High North )

6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 4 x T-31 , 5 x RB-2

EoS Fleet ( Gulf , Indo- Pacific )

4 x T-31's , 4 x RB-3
We currently expect the T32 to be based on the T31 (obviously subject to change up until the T32 contract is finally placed for the T32's to enter service in the early 2030's). So essntially you are swapping 2*T32 for 4*River B3's.

The River B2's are just over 90m in length. So you are adding 20m in length with your proposal for new River B3's. The main thing you are adding is the fully enclosed hangar. If a telescopic hangar could be added to the existing B2's, then hopefully could add fully enclosed hangar by adding just 10m length. If so then would be a total of 100m and hopefully cheaper than what you were suggesting, and budget funds still seem to be very stretched so a cost saving without affecting their ability to perform the low-medium intensity tasks of policing and patrolling would be good.

Otherwise at 110m proposed length for River B3's, then for me you are approaching Corvette / Sloop / Light Frigate class rather than OPV. If you are going for that size of ship, rather than a stretched River B2, I think I prefer your previous suggestion of revised Leander class design, crucalliy able to perform the ASW role that River class were not designed for.

Finally the River B1's are due to be 30 years old in 2033. I don't know how long they can be realistically retained in service if they are simply patrolling the EEZ and fishery protection in home waters. The longer they can be kept running (in a cost effective manner), then the longer we can leave the existing River B2's deployed overseas.

But I broadly agree with you - these comments are tweaks to what you are suggesting - I do think we could do with at least 3 River B3's EoS to allow any Frigates deployed there to focus on the more important missions whilst the River B3's do the low intensity policing and patrolling duties.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 16:53
Tempest414 wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 14:11 So as asked moved over here from the River class thread

So with the navy as it is and with the current contracts we will see

6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 5 x T-31 , 5 x RB2's

So if there is 2 billion to spend on type 32 what could we do different. well for me as said on the River class thread we could build 3 extra T-31's for say 1.2 billion bring the class to 8 ships and spend the remaining 800 million on 4 River B3's at 180 million per ship these new B3's being laid out like so

110 meters , 1 x 57mm , 1 x 40mm , 4 x 12.7mm , Low cost 3D radar , good CMS , Mission bay capable of carrying 1 x helicopter and 2 x MCM USV's or 4 x USV's and a UAV , Crew 40 plus 60 extra mission crew

This could allow for a fleet of

6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 ,8 x T-31 , 4 x RB-3 , 5 x RB-2

Deployed like so
Home Fleet ( Atlantic , Med , High North )

6 x T-45 , 8 x T-26 , 4 x T-31 , 5 x RB-2

EoS Fleet ( Gulf , Indo- Pacific )

4 x T-31's , 4 x RB-3
We currently expect the T32 to be based on the T31 (obviously subject to change up until the T32 contract is finally placed for the T32's to enter service in the early 2030's). So essntially you are swapping 2*T32 for 4*River B3's.

The River B2's are just over 90m in length. So you are adding 20m in length with your proposal for new River B3's. The main thing you are adding is the fully enclosed hangar. If a telescopic hangar could be added to the existing B2's, then hopefully could add fully enclosed hangar by adding just 10m length. If so then would be a total of 100m and hopefully cheaper than what you were suggesting, and budget funds still seem to be very stretched so a cost saving without affecting their ability to perform the low-medium intensity tasks of policing and patrolling would be good.

Otherwise at 110m proposed length for River B3's, then for me you are approaching Corvette / Sloop / Light Frigate class rather than OPV. If you are going for that size of ship, rather than a stretched River B2, I think I prefer your previous suggestion of revised Leander class design, crucalliy able to perform the ASW role that River class were not designed for.

Finally the River B1's are due to be 30 years old in 2033. I don't know how long they can be realistically retained in service if they are simply patrolling the EEZ and fishery protection in home waters. The longer they can be kept running (in a cost effective manner), then the longer we can leave the existing River B2's deployed overseas.

But I broadly agree with you - these comments are tweaks to what you are suggesting - I do think we could do with at least 3 River B3's EoS to allow any Frigates deployed there to focus on the more important missions whilst the River B3's do the low intensity policing and patrolling duties.
The reason for picking 110 meters is two fold first BMT carried out study that concluded that a ship needed to be 107 meters or above to conduct meaningful helicopter operation. Second is we are going to need the mission bay to be 20 meters so that it can carry a helicopter plus 2 USV's otherwise we lose the flexibility of the B2 which could carry 2 x 7m ribs , 3 x 9m ribs and a UAV at the same time

Also the reason for having 4 T-31 and 4 RB-3 is to allow 3 of each to be at sea or readiness and 1 of each to be in maintenance meaning the six ships could cover East Africa , Gulf and Indo - Pacific

I would agree that the RB-3 I laid out would be Sloops but that is not a bad thing

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 4):
serge750Repulsewargame_insomniacdonald_of_tokyo

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

What this shows for me is that there is a complete lack of ASW frigates in the RN. With the CSG deployed and a similar incident happening it’s easy to see it would be a significant gap before a replacement vessel is available.
”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: 141
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 82 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 19:00 What this shows for me is that there is a complete lack of ASW frigates in the RN. With the CSG deployed and a similar incident happening it’s easy to see it would be a significant gap before a replacement vessel is available.
Well 3 of the Type 23 ASW Frigates (Somerset, St.Albans and Sutherland) were the last ones to start LIFEX refit. So we are currently down to five ASW Frigates, two of which have just been on CSG21 and will thus be undergoing repairs and maintenance on their return. But as the LIFEX refits are complted we should be getting an additional ASW Frigate back each year for the next three years, so availability should improve.....

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 82 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 17:53 The reason for picking 110 meters is two fold first BMT carried out study that concluded that a ship needed to be 107 meters or above to conduct meaningful helicopter operation. Second is we are going to need the mission bay to be 20 meters so that it can carry a helicopter plus 2 USV's otherwise we lose the flexibility of the B2 which could carry 2 x 7m ribs , 3 x 9m ribs and a UAV at the same time

Also the reason for having 4 T-31 and 4 RB-3 is to allow 3 of each to be at sea or readiness and 1 of each to be in maintenance meaning the six ships could cover East Africa , Gulf and Indo - Pacific

I would agree that the RB-3 I laid out would be Sloops but that is not a bad thing
Understand the first point. On the second it is a shame that it would take 20m extension to fit in the enclosed hangar - I would thought that could have done this by some redsign and thus need less extra length and thus cheaper price, but never mind.

These proposed River B3's would have more firepower than B2's, and more utility with enclosed hangar for operating helicopters and UAV/USV/USuV. But other than easily adding LMM's to help with anti-horde boat/drone/USV attacks, this 110m vessel would still lack missiles for AAW/ASW/ASuW.

We have discussed on River thread the possible upgrading of River B2's or building new B3's to the OPV+ and/or the OPV Max level, and I do like the idea of an ugraded B3. And I like the idea of either using smaller UK shipyards such as Appledore (and maybe Belfast) to build these smaller, less complicated warships, leaving Clyde and Rosyth to concentrate on T26/T31.

But I worry your proposed 110m River B3 costing £180m apiece, without ANY real AAW/ASW/ASuW, would be past a tipping point of cost versus utility.....

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 20:45 But as the LIFEX refits are complted we should be getting an additional ASW Frigate back each year for the next three years, so availability should improve.....
Eight ASW warships is the max, and it’s not enough. At best it means three deployed and two training / working up. Given the real priorities of the RN, ASW platforms should be at the top of the list rather than political tokens such as paper T31 frigates.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
JensyScimitar54
”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: 141
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 82 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 22:45
wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 20:45 But as the LIFEX refits are complted we should be getting an additional ASW Frigate back each year for the next three years, so availability should improve.....
Eight ASW warships is the max, and it’s not enough. At best it means three deployed and two training / working up. Given the real priorities of the RN, ASW platforms should be at the top of the list rather than political tokens such as paper T31 frigates.
Given the financial constraints we are under, do you want quantity of ASW or quality of ASW, as we can't have both?

I understand that cost for the current eight ships was quoted as £8 billion in 2016 as per HoC Defence Committee. I don't know if there is a more up to date quote? I presume we should get an update quote once the formal contract for the remaining 5 ships is placed soon. Also we don't know what impact on costs will be from Australia ordering 9 ship and Canada 15? Will this reduce the overall design costs by spreading over larger number of ships?

So for £2bn do you want 2*T26 as specialist ASW Frigates, or 5*T31 as General Purpose Frigates? Bearing in mind what is currently ordered is replicating what RN had previously with 8*T23 ASW and 5*T23 GP? What you were proposing eems to be an escort fleet of just 16 ships, 6*T45 + 10*T26....

I have said several times that T31 should be upgunned and VLS cells maximised as soon as Babcock have delivered the hulls. But it does look as if the MoD have finally managed to negotiate the production of a decent Frigate hull at a surpringly low fixed cost.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Jensy

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 23:29 Given the financial constraints we are under, do you want quantity of ASW or quality of ASW, as we can't have both?
With the current state of our national finances / the global situation I think we have to look to a hybrid solution that provides Tier 1 in the circumstances where it is desperately needed, and a capable Tier 2 solution when it is not.
wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 23:29 I have said several times that T31 should be upgunned and VLS cells maximised as soon as Babcock have delivered the hulls. But it does look as if the MoD have finally managed to negotiate the production of a decent Frigate hull at a surpringly low fixed cost.
I'm pretty sold on this too. Would very much like to turn Type 31 into a Tier 2 AAW frigate to supplement the Type 45s. Possibly even replace Type 45 equipment and move it across, such as the Smart-L Radar. We know the base platform is up to the task.

There's three ways I'd look to approach 'Type 32':

1) Forget the whole idea and bring forward Type 83 to the mid 2030s (tricky considering Dreadnought/Tempest) and look to build a fleet of at least ten multipurpose destroyers, a British Burke for CSG escort, that can allow the Type 26 to roam the world as 'Global Combat Ships', support whatever amphibious groups eventually emerge with the Type 31 and work the GIUK gap. In turn we reduce the unit cost of Type 83 and keep the Clyde sustained over several decades.

2) Develop a prior design, such as Leander or Venator 110 as an designated lower end ASW frigate or sloop without the scale of quietening or hull optimisation. Ensure that it has a comparable, and ideally compatible, mission bay to Type 26 so that we establish commons standards of offboard platforms. Type 26 remains the CSG and LSG/LRG/ARG escort (supported by the AAW Type 31) and this 'Type 32' fills in all the other roles and in turn grows the fleet.

3) Keep the Type 31 line going and build an ASW variant that has the means of operating offboard systems, taking features from the Absalon Class, such as dual hangars, rear ramp/TAS and an extra deck, but certainly not recreating it. The 31s and 32s become the direct Tier 2 equivalents of the 45s and 26s, deployed as needed.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqwargame_insomniac

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 31 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 23:29So for £2bn do you want 2*T26 as specialist ASW Frigates, or 5*T31 as General Purpose Frigates?
Interesting discussion.

As the "£8Bn for 8 T26 hulls" is including (detail and completely new) designing and initial (inefficiency) cost, it means "the cost for one-more-hull" is £800M or even less (only if the "£8Bn for 8 T26 hulls" are correct).

So, if there be £2Bn, it will buy two more T26 (£1.6Bn) and £400M left. If ASW at north Atlantic is important, I think this is surely one good option. Of course, this will improve the 1st-tiear fleet number.

The "£400M left" can be 4 more River B2 or / 2 more River "B3" or / 3 more something in-between.

But I rather think, it can be
- 3 "simplistic" OPV for £150M to replace 3 River B1s.
- £250M to up-arm 3 of the 5 T31s with CAPTAS-4CI to make it tier-2 ASW capable

This will provide
- 6 T45 for CSG and partly LSG
- 6 T26 for CGS and partly LSG
- 4 T26 for North Atlantic and TAPS (+partly LSG)
- 3 multi-purpose T31s for NATO standing fleets and partly LSG
- 2 basic T31s for Gulf (+partly LSG, when it is in Gulf)
- 5 River B2 as of now (+partly LSG)
- 3 River B1 replacement, as of now (EEZ/Fishery + basic training)

Just one proposal. :D
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
dmereifieldwargame_insomniac

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 31 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 16:48 4) Littoral Strike - high readiness amphibious capabilities based around specialist ships
5) Forward Deployed Naval Assets - small number of warships strategically based around the globe.
....
(4) is still being defined. However if the FCF concept is numerous small forward deployed units, then the platforms to support them need to also match this numerous, small forward deployed structure. Rather than try and pair these ships with Escorts, would it be better that they are "self-escorting" having the (self-defence and even offensive) capabilities as the requirements define; though in the context that any major operation will require a CSG. What is still missing for me is the requirement for moving an Army Brigade, though given that it is likely to be a major event then allocating one of the two CSGs as escorts is probably ok.
Not sure "self escorting" is a good idea. See Siela Leone. One or two River B2 will suffice. If Yemen terrorists site is the target, you need so-so good AAW, at least one of two T31, or even better. But, if further threat-level is considered, I think the full CSG must be called.

As such, LSG's escort requirement has huge diversity, which means "self escorting" (other than very basic level) shall be in many cases a waste of resource. Better to add CAMM on T31 or adding 57mm 3P/ALaMo to River B2, etc etc...

This is just my opinion, and of course, open for debate. :D

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Or maybe the best way to hunt a submarine is with another submarine
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 02:58 Not sure "self escorting" is a good idea. See Siela Leone. One or two River B2 will suffice. If Yemen terrorists site is the target, you need so-so good AAW, at least one of two T31, or even better. But, if further threat-level is considered, I think the full CSG must be called.

As such, LSG's escort requirement has huge diversity, which means "self escorting" (other than very basic level) shall be in many cases a waste of resource. Better to add CAMM on T31 or adding 57mm 3P/ALaMo to River B2, etc etc...

This is just my opinion, and of course, open for debate.
Given the strategy of a larger number of dispersed amphibs with smaller RM units, then I cannot see how dedicated LSG escorts really make sense. Each amphib should be capable of operating at a threat level according to the expected common requirement IMO. I personally see no issue putting a dozen or two CAMM on the amphib itself if it's required, rather than prioritise money on an amphib and escort combination.

The key as you point out is still to have the scale and ability to customise a mission group, which would include forward based Rivers up to an escorting CSG. What I have trouble with is identifying the scenario where you need more than a River, but not a CSG - to me that is like kicking a honets nest but expecting to be okay with a fly swatter.
”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: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 23:29 Given the financial constraints we are under, do you want quantity of ASW or quality of ASW, as we can't have both?
Putting aside the thought that the RN can afford virtually anything it wants to prioritise, the answer would still be it needs to be a balance. However, following my view on alot of things regarding the RN, I would go for a hi-low mix rather than trying to balance hi-mid-low. Low for me are simple survey / unmanned vessels

Also we should be careful not to get into the lazy thinking that all ASW platforms are there to do the same job. Are the requirements the same for a ASW platform escorting a relatively noisy CSG whose job it is to keep subs away vs an ASW platform that is actively (silently) hunting subs away from a task group?

I see two affordable but effective options for the surface fleet:
1) Cancel the T31 and T32, taking the left over money to buy at least 4 more T26s. Yes it will result in a smaller fleet, but one that can actually fight rather than look good on a wall chart.
2) Take the planned T32 money and build 6 T31s, adapting the design to be a suitable CSG ASW escort with high end (active) sonar. This leaves the 8 first rate ASW T26s to operate more independently as required in the North Atlantic and further afield.

Reality is that the opportunity for (1) has probably now gone - the money saved would be limited and the industry / political fall-out too great, hence why I've been pushing (2).

Both of these of course needs to be combined with more MPAs (P8s & UAVs), Merlins, XLUUVs / USVs and remote/static surveillance capabilities. I would love more SSNs of course, but rebuilding the capability to have double digit numbers of SSNs will take 10+ years.

The reality is that all the assumptions since 1990 that the Russian subsurface threat is consigned to history have been smashed with the reality that they are back. And what's more, in the next couple of decades they will be joined by the Chinese. Just to be clear however, this doesn't mean we should pillage the CSG (or LSGs) having the ability to project power globally is a key part of the layered defence, keeping potential enemies focusing on their backyard also.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Definitely no where near as cool as marko ramius

These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply