Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

tomuk wrote: 21 May 2023, 23:50 They might not be a match for an ASW specialist like T26 but I'd like more evidence that they are very bad or unsuitable for ASW than your say so.
Sorry, I am not saying they are very bad. Just saying "relatively" unsuitable.

[What I understand]
Adding CAPTAS-4 (or CAPTAS-4CI (has shorter tail)) will make any ship "so-so good at ASW". "To what extent", I understand there is no open information.


- There are many MEKO200 class. MEKO200 of RAN and RNZN has a (relatively) small hull sonar "spherion-B" mounted, and they say it can do ASW.

- Dutch M-class frigate are known to be much better ASW ship (compared to MEKO200). They have CODAG propulsion with rafted diesel, but they are specifically designed for ASW in "passive TASS era", with "good" hull-quiet-measure in mind. When adding LFAPS active low-frequency VDS+TASS system, they saw "quantum leap" in ASW capability. (I remember there was a report saying that Dutch navy omitted passive-only mode from their low-frequency VDS+TASS system. Interesting)

- French FDI (with CODAD propulsion and CAPTAS-4CI sonar) is designed under the policy that "not-so-quiet but cheaper hull combined with CAPTAS-4CI" in larger number. It is an alternative to FREMM, which has CODLAG propulsion and full-fat CAPTAS-4 sonar suit.

- T23 overwhelms M-class frigate (not to say MEKO200) in its ASW capability, investing a lot on hull-quiet-measure, with CODLAG propulsion. But of course, M-class frigate with "active low-frequency VDS+TASS system" will be much better in ASW capability than T23GP (without CAPTAS-4)

None of these "ASW doable" frigate has side-thruster. None. In all ASW-related textbooks, it is said that "omitting side-thruster" is important for ASW. USN FFG-7 class has retractable azimuth thruster (which was also the 2ndary propulsion, as she is a single-shaft escort) has a so-so good cover on the azimuth thruster to reduce flow noise.

[What I guess]
An IH-class with CAPTAS-4 or CAPTAS-4CI will do ASW much better than even a T23GP. "Active low-frequency VDS+TASS system" is a game changer. But, I guess "M-class with CAPTAS-4CI added", "MEKO200 with CAPTAS-4CI added" and "FDI with CAPTAS-4CI added" will be much better than "IH-class with CAPTAS-4CI added". This is my point.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 21 May 2023, 14:46
Ron5 wrote: 21 May 2023, 14:28 The main picture is of a different ship in a different class: Absalon.
Yes, hence I said
... The same applies to Absalon class (see the attached photo).

Just for clarity...
Apologies. Missed that line.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 May 2023, 04:56
tomuk wrote: 21 May 2023, 23:50 They might not be a match for an ASW specialist like T26 but I'd like more evidence that they are very bad or unsuitable for ASW than your say so.
Sorry, I am not saying they are very bad. Just saying "relatively" unsuitable.

[What I understand]
Adding CAPTAS-4 (or CAPTAS-4CI (has shorter tail)) will make any ship "so-so good at ASW". "To what extent", I understand there is no open information.


- There are many MEKO200 class. MEKO200 of RAN and RNZN has a (relatively) small hull sonar "spherion-B" mounted, and they say it can do ASW.

- Dutch M-class frigate are known to be much better ASW ship (compared to MEKO200). They have CODAG propulsion with rafted diesel, but they are specifically designed for ASW in "passive TASS era", with "good" hull-quiet-measure in mind. When adding LFAPS active low-frequency VDS+TASS system, they saw "quantum leap" in ASW capability. (I remember there was a report saying that Dutch navy omitted passive-only mode from their low-frequency VDS+TASS system. Interesting)

- French FDI (with CODAD propulsion and CAPTAS-4CI sonar) is designed under the policy that "not-so-quiet but cheaper hull combined with CAPTAS-4CI" in larger number. It is an alternative to FREMM, which has CODLAG propulsion and full-fat CAPTAS-4 sonar suit.

- T23 overwhelms M-class frigate (not to say MEKO200) in its ASW capability, investing a lot on hull-quiet-measure, with CODLAG propulsion. But of course, M-class frigate with "active low-frequency VDS+TASS system" will be much better in ASW capability than T23GP (without CAPTAS-4)

None of these "ASW doable" frigate has side-thruster. None. In all ASW-related textbooks, it is said that "omitting side-thruster" is important for ASW. USN FFG-7 class has retractable azimuth thruster (which was also the 2ndary propulsion, as she is a single-shaft escort) has a so-so good cover on the azimuth thruster to reduce flow noise.

[What I guess]
An IH-class with CAPTAS-4 or CAPTAS-4CI will do ASW much better than even a T23GP. "Active low-frequency VDS+TASS system" is a game changer. But, I guess "M-class with CAPTAS-4CI added", "MEKO200 with CAPTAS-4CI added" and "FDI with CAPTAS-4CI added" will be much better than "IH-class with CAPTAS-4CI added". This is my point.
I'd just like to point out that FREMM, FDI and PPA all have bow thrusters.

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 »

tomuk wrote: 22 May 2023, 16:42 I'd just like to point out that FREMM, FDI and PPA all have bow thrusters.
Thanks. Checked it.
- FREMM has a retractable/covered bow thruster. Not so bad for ASW.
Image
- FDI has a big-hole bow thruster. Similar to IH-class.
Image
- PPA has a big-hole bow thruster. Similar to IH-class
Image
- Type-26 nor Type-23 has bow thruster. M-class do not, either.

Interesting list, actually. ASW specific hulls does NOT have bow thruster or has retractable/covered ones. More GP-like frigate has a big-hole bow thruster.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 May 2023, 17:06 Interesting list….
Agreed, and the T31 GP compares remarkably well if configured to the full potential.

The FDI is the direct competition which adjusted for inflation much be around £500m now.

The T31 GP beats the FDI on virtually every metric including price.

The £450m T31 GP is very well rounded and great value.

- NS110
- 57mm
- 2x 40mm
- 32 CAMM
- 32 Mk41
- 16x NSM
- Captas 4
- Maximum speed in excess of 28knts
- Range of 9000nmi
- Chinook flight deck, double Wildcat hanger
- 3x RHIBs

Highly exportable.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
new guySD67

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Some good looking models of Arrowhead 140 (not Type 31); BAE ASF; Type 26 and Boris's cancelled pleasure barge:



Particularly of interest to me, is the Arrowhead 140 model:

Image

Seems to have a:

- Midships mission bay, looking like it's full-width and long enough for a Thales MCM USV.

- No VLS visible on the weapons deck.

- VLS for 16 x Mk.41 cells moved to the 'B' gun turret positions.

- Something looks different about the flight deck but it's hard to tell from this angle.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqdonald_of_tokyo

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Just looks like a model of the configurations that have been show in the arrowhead 140 website for months now.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Is a single 40mm on the stern of a T31 enough to stop a dozen of these?


tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 May 2023, 17:27 Is a single 40mm on the stern of a T31 enough to stop a dozen of these?
As compared to a single 30mm on the waist of a T23, T26 or T45. T45 and T26 does have Phalanx too.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5551
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Yes I think so remember the Ivan Khurs only has 4 x manual 14.5 HMG and stop 2 out 3 the T-31's 40mm with 3P could start engaging targets at 8 plus Km's depending on how the attack develops there would be time to bring forward 57 & 40mm into play plus the manned 12.7mm HMG's

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Just some nice clear photos of the weapons deck on the Iver Huitfeldt and Absalon Class:


Image

Image

These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
Ron5

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

On T31 the deck height in the 'bathtub' is raised to the height of the Mk41 launchers to give headroom in the boat bay below.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 22 May 2023, 20:19
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 May 2023, 17:06 Interesting list….
Agreed, and the T31 GP compares remarkably well if configured to the full potential.

The FDI is the direct competition which adjusted for inflation much be around £500m now.

The T31 GP beats the FDI on virtually every metric including price.

The £450m T31 GP is very well rounded and great value.

- NS110
- 57mm
- 2x 40mm
- 32 CAMM
- 32 Mk41
- 16x NSM
- Captas 4
- Maximum speed in excess of 28knts
- Range of 9000nmi
- Chinook flight deck, double Wildcat hanger
- 3x RHIBs

Highly exportable.
Not knocking the T31 in anyway as you describe but FDI has some major advantages as built for the additional cost.

The FDI has the much more capable Sea Fire four panel radar than the T31 NS110 single panel rotating radar, with radars antenna (assuming same type of antenna eg AESA GaN TRMs), size is all important in allowing you to pump out the electric power in the form of RF energy for range and discrimination, also the advantage of four panel radars is that it gives you continuous simultaneous 360° coverage with the ability to process through that whole kill chain with multiple targets simultaneously when under intense attack.
A rotating lower powered radar when under intense attack from numerous missiles etc may when it is not looking at the target, is predicting where that target is going to be for the next rotation and with its limited RF energy the target may not be able to be tracked it if not where you thought it was going to be eg hypersonic manoeuvrable missile, and if it is not, you just lost the history, you will see it again, but you will pick it up as a brand new track and you are going to have start over again the kill chain process.

Also the FDI has the much more capable longer range Aster 30, a ~150 km AA missile whereas MBDA described the 25 km Sea Ceptor is a close in weapons system (CIWS), when queried by Naval News as why chosen for the CSC as well as the 50 km ESSM, MBDA said ESSM would provide the point defense.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

NickC wrote: 28 May 2023, 12:56 Not knocking the T31 in anyway as you describe but FDI has some major advantages as built for the additional cost.
No argument.

However, it must be considered that budgets are finite and compromises have be made to work within the budget envelopes.

The UK now has an exportable design for the most capable ASW Frigate in the world.

The UK also has an exportable design for an affordable and highly capable ASuW Frigate.

The UK is also potentially designing a Frigate optimised for operating off-board systems as well one of the most capable AAW Destroyers the world has yet seen.

Not to mention world class Auxiliaries designs.

So depending on the available budget the UK has escort export options with varying capabilities. It’s for other countries to decide if a UK design is their best option.

The next-gen OPV is the gap the UK currently needs to fill which if done properly will also be highly exportable.

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: 28 May 2023, 13:15
NickC wrote: 28 May 2023, 12:56 Not knocking the T31 in anyway as you describe but FDI has some major advantages as built for the additional cost.
No argument.

However, it must be considered that budgets are finite and compromises have be made to work within the budget envelopes.

The UK now has an exportable design for the most capable ASW Frigate in the world.

The UK also has an exportable design for an affordable and highly capable ASuW Frigate.

The UK is also potentially designing a Frigate optimised for operating off-board systems as well one of the most capable AAW Destroyers the world has yet seen.

Not to mention world class Auxiliaries designs.

So depending on the available budget the UK has escort export options with varying capabilities. It’s for other countries to decide if a UK design is their best option.

The next-gen OPV is the gap the UK currently needs to fill which if done properly will also be highly exportable.
1. FDI is modern in all senses, and from what i've heard it's CMS is world class. It's relatively affordable for what it gives in quality.

2. Arrowhead 140 is a very exportable and capable design , with both 🇵🇱 & 🇮🇩 giving it teeth. As for T31, lets look to see what the MoD can pull off.

3. I assume you mean T26, which to berocrasy isn't affordable and probably won't be more exported. In an ASuW aspect, it is still very capable, par in the offensive aspect with the fact it currently needs a very expensive heli to do that bit. If a torpedo launch system is added, yay. MK41 torpedo launched will be an improvement but quite expensive and it takes up valuable tubes. UAV would be cheap but is only in development.

4. The future for T32 will likely be IMO as turbulent as the fiasco of T26 procurement if the turbulence was condensed into the how on earth are we going to get this??? moment. As for T45 it was world class when it first came, but now we live in a world where the T55 destroyer exists. In terms of T45 vs T83, I expect that T83 sould outweigh multiple T45 capability wise. It will be intresting to see what the RN will do when faced with SSNR/AUKUS, with expectations of 12 (! like that's happening!) and hopes for 12 T83 (This ain't gonna happen either) around the same time period. In my head that is £37.5bn if managed like clockwork to £50bn if managed like the MoD on a mild-good day. If its 8 for each, which is very, very good then it would be around under £35bn. food for thought

5. as for auxiliaries, 4 were built for us in SK for a portion less than £500m, which was probably even with a pit of overcharge on their end. 3 will be built IMO not too bad. I mean FSS withstood a lot of bureaucracy and false starts, Is re-kindling UK industry and is coming in 2028, with construction starting this year, and is modern. Sure none of this breaks any world records but it's something.

6. Next gen OPV. Yes.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5551
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

It would be fair to say the River class has done well in exports with 5 ships 3 built in the UK and 2 over seas plus Clyde was sold on after service meaning 14 ships built 8 with the RN and 6 with 3 other navies

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 May 2023, 14:37 It would be fair to say the River class has done well in exports with 5 ships 3 built in the UK and 2 over seas plus Clyde was sold on after service meaning 14 ships built 8 with the RN and 6 with 3 other navies
Absolutley but RN and UK PLC needs a next-gen OPV now.

Ideally with different variants of the core concept much like Damen does with the Enforcer and Crossover designs.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5551
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 28 May 2023, 16:32
Tempest414 wrote: 28 May 2023, 14:37 It would be fair to say the River class has done well in exports with 5 ships 3 built in the UK and 2 over seas plus Clyde was sold on after service meaning 14 ships built 8 with the RN and 6 with 3 other navies
Absolutley but RN and UK PLC needs a next-gen OPV now.

Ideally with different variants of the core concept much like Damen does with the Enforcer and Crossover designs.
What we really need is to push the RB2's to see what it is capable of when fitted with different POD's things like can it do MCM , ASW using the unmanned klt. What can they offer if fitted with say 2 x Jackal UAV's and 3 unmanned armed Pacific 950's if fitted with a 3D radar can it operate CAMM and Spear POD's

For all these thing need to be pushed so we know what to build next
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

To be real about T32, if the royal navy wants more frigates it should get a T31 B2 with improved capabilities (~£2.5bn?) Don't make another class for no reason
If the RN needs a better RM carrier, get more MRSS.
If the RN needs a mother-ship, get more LSV / start a MHPC/LSV/OPV programme of initially ~12 units and keep River B2.
RN still hasn't stated the role of T32
We don't know the role of T32

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

new guy wrote: 28 May 2023, 17:53 If the RN needs a better RM carrier, get more MRSS.
What is an MRSS?
We don't know the role of T32
Not exactly but the ASF is pointing the way.

We also know that five of them will cost upwards of £2.5bn to build in the U.K.

With a clean sheet design it will be £3bn+ which is simply unjustifiable in this financial climate.

RN has better options.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 28 May 2023, 16:32
Tempest414 wrote: 28 May 2023, 14:37 It would be fair to say the River class has done well in exports with 5 ships 3 built in the UK and 2 over seas plus Clyde was sold on after service meaning 14 ships built 8 with the RN and 6 with 3 other navies
Absolutley but RN and UK PLC needs a next-gen OPV now.
Why does it need a next gen OPV now ? It doesn't need any itself.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 28 May 2023, 18:35 Why does it need a next gen OPV now ? It doesn't need any itself.
Current planning has the T31’s relieving the forward based RB2’s starting around 2028 when the RB1’s decommission.

Therefore RN needs to start designing the next-gen OPV now to get them in build by 2026 when three of the RB2’s start to concentrate on UK EEZ patrol.

If that doesn’t happen, due to the introduction of two new Frigate classes at the same time it’s highly likely RN will continue to get smaller each year until the early 2030’s when commissioned Frigate numbers start to increase.

In addition, as with the RB2’s if a gap in the drumbeat does occur for any reason at Rosyth or Govan RN needs an OPV design ready and waiting to maintain the skills within the workforce.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 28 May 2023, 18:35 Why does it need a next gen OPV now ? It doesn't need any itself.
It needs a B1 River replacement and a new LSV, much better to have a MHPC class.
”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

CraigL
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 22 Jan 2023, 22:21
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by CraigL »

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.
Why not the Absalon class? The Vard looks great but looks like a fairly defenceless littoral ship like Albion/Bulwark.

If the Royal Marines are going back to their raiding roots from light infantry are we ever going to be deploying them in large numbers from the sea or do we need a ship that can defend itself sufficiently to get to a hostile coastline before deploying raiders from air or sea?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_frigate

Post Reply