Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

SW1 wrote:-
The issue dates back to post 98 defence review and early 00s. The last couple of type 23 were coming online and ballooning out of control costs on aircraft carriers meant frigates were sacrificed to pay for them. Not to mention the horizon/type 45 shambles.
Total BS ! …………. The real reason was to finance operatins in Iraq and Afghanistan.


SW1 wrote:-
Is the RN below critical mass?not sure it is. Escorts available this past decade or so has been pretty poor. There is probably no appreciable difference in escort numbers in the next few years compared the past decade, the escort fleet has only sailed on paper to an extent. No real significant solution from here beyond continuing to use opv instead of frigates and prioritising what you wish to do all self inflicted.
What an asinine point of view ! :crazy: That is not too far from you suggesting that the RAF use Cessna Light Aircraft instead of Typhoon Fast Jets.

You seem to be plumbing new depths in idiocy.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Scimitar54 wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 17:08 SW1 wrote:-
The issue dates back to post 98 defence review and early 00s. The last couple of type 23 were coming online and ballooning out of control costs on aircraft carriers meant frigates were sacrificed to pay for them. Not to mention the horizon/type 45 shambles.
Total BS ! …………. The real reason was to finance operatins in Iraq and Afghanistan.


SW1 wrote:-
Is the RN below critical mass?not sure it is. Escorts available this past decade or so has been pretty poor. There is probably no appreciable difference in escort numbers in the next few years compared the past decade, the escort fleet has only sailed on paper to an extent. No real significant solution from here beyond continuing to use opv instead of frigates and prioritising what you wish to do all self inflicted.
What an asinine point of view ! :crazy: That is not too far from you suggesting that the RAF use Cessna Light Aircraft instead of Typhoon Fast Jets.

You seem to be plumbing new depths in idiocy.
He isn't wrong. RN had its own cost problems by a margin, not just MoD in general. And if the other ASW assets increase operating rate 2025-2028+ enough to cover the gap, and T26 speeds up, then there is the same capability as before. Remain civil.
These users liked the author new guy for the post:
SD67

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 17:08 SW1 wrote:-
The issue dates back to post 98 defence review and early 00s. The last couple of type 23 were coming online and ballooning out of control costs on aircraft carriers meant frigates were sacrificed to pay for them. Not to mention the horizon/type 45 shambles.
Total BS ! …………. The real reason was to finance operatins in Iraq and Afghanistan.


SW1 wrote:-
Is the RN below critical mass?not sure it is. Escorts available this past decade or so has been pretty poor. There is probably no appreciable difference in escort numbers in the next few years compared the past decade, the escort fleet has only sailed on paper to an extent. No real significant solution from here beyond continuing to use opv instead of frigates and prioritising what you wish to do all self inflicted.
What an asinine point of view ! :crazy: That is not too far from you suggesting that the RAF use Cessna Light Aircraft instead of Typhoon Fast Jets.

You seem to be plumbing new depths in idiocy.
Then I suggest you read the defence committee and nao reports into carrier strike if you think it’s BS. Or the testimony of several sea lords and procurement people of the time.

Well it’s the RN that is currently using opv’s rather than frigates because it hasn’t got any working escorts, maybe you can suggest how you magic up some new escorts in the next couple of years go right ahead. It made its bed now it is lying in it.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

In 98 did anyone think that the 4 B3 Type 22's would go without replacement after just 20 years service

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Or, that we would not have 1 for 1 replacements for the T42s ?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Tempest414 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 00:47 In 98 did anyone think that the 4 B3 Type 22's would go without replacement after just 20 years service
I'd imagine they probably wouldn't have minded at all. Back then we were withdrawing Batch 2 Type 22s with as little as 12 years service life at the time!

Then again there was the vision back then to see a balanced fleet for a more peaceful time.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 18:12 It made its bed now it is lying in it.
It wasn’t RN that made the bed. Between the early 1990’s and the mid 2000’s HMG virtually halved UK Defence spending despite getting entangled in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

RN can not and should not be blamed for idiotic decisions by politicians.
7AB4FD78-918D-4478-ACB8-8959B7A7681A.jpeg
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
Repulseserge750donald_of_tokyo

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jensy wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 01:08
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 00:47 In 98 did anyone think that the 4 B3 Type 22's would go without replacement after just 20 years service
I'd imagine they probably wouldn't have minded at all. Back then we were withdrawing Batch 2 Type 22s with as little as 12 years service life at the time!

Then again there was the vision back then to see a balanced fleet for a more peaceful time.
yes but they were replaced with 16 Type 23 so in 2004 we had 20 frigates 4 x T-22 B3 and 16 Type 23 this dropped to 17 when the 3 T-23's were sold off

In real terms we should have kept 16 frigates we should have replaced the T-22's with 6 new GP frigates and Type 23 with 10 new ASW frigates
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Jensy

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

It should be remembered that between 1998 and 2006 we built a Amphib fleet of

1 x LPH , 2 x LPD,s and 4 x LSD's plus 6 Point class

At the same time maintaining 3 x Light carriers

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 01:10
SW1 wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 18:12 It made its bed now it is lying in it.
It wasn’t RN that made the bed. Between the early 1990’s and the mid 2000’s HMG virtually halved UK Defence spending despite getting entangled in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

RN can not and should not be blamed for idiotic decisions by politicians.

7AB4FD78-918D-4478-ACB8-8959B7A7681A.jpeg
From post 98 review which was my reference the defence has barely moved it has been between 2-2.5% of gdp as your graph shows. They have spent 24 billions pounds purchasing 16 ships 2 carriers and 14 escorts not to mention all the additional money spent on “studies/window shopping”. They had there money and spent it the way they wanted.

The last 3 type 23 were averaging about 140m pounds in the early 00s they could of quite easily at that time decided to continue building that class if they wished to spend less else where in the ship building program. They chose not to. When all the senior decision makers in the services stop blaming everyone else and look in the mirror at the decisions they took thing will start to improve. If you want a comparison the Americans started building arleigh Burke in the 80s they will still be building them in the 2030s.

They took the decision to start cutting escorts to fund other things in the hope that money would have to be found in the future to magically replace them and then they again stated they were more interested in task groups than single deployments so they needed less escorts.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 09:03 From post 98 review which was my reference the defence has barely moved it has been between 2-2.5% of gdp as your graph shows.
My main point is, if you are managing an organisation that has procurements stretching decades into the future and your funding is halved over 10 to 15 years it’s devastating. Suddenly you have to try and do a lot more with a lot less. Each hull has to be much more efficient and effective. This in turn makes systems more complex and expensive because the mass is gone.

RN made mistakes but the politicians must take the blame for the systematic dismantling of the UK’s National Security.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
new guyserge750Caribbean

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

I like this hull form
https://t.co/wioWsoClWR
Reminds me of LSV plans, except ours will be 5000+ (Both RFA Proteus and RFA Stirling castle are, so the likelihood is that the rest of the castle class will be) and slow.
But get one of these, add a second higher deck to function as a helipad and add a telescopic hanger + Davids + 2 cranes and a rear gun then IMO an optimal design for Future OPV/MPHC. what, 50-100m each (Reminder that we got the XV for cheaper than we got the 2 patrol boats for Gibraltar, XVPB being less than 10m)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 10:29
SW1 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 09:03 From post 98 review which was my reference the defence has barely moved it has been between 2-2.5% of gdp as your graph shows.
My main point is, if you are managing an organisation that has procurements stretching decades into the future and your funding is halved over 10 to 15 years it’s devastating. Suddenly you have to try and do a lot more with a lot less. Each hull has to be much more efficient and effective. This in turn makes systems more complex and expensive because the mass is gone.

RN made mistakes but the politicians must take the blame for the systematic dismantling of the UK’s National Security.
From the 80s until the early 90s yes there was a big drop as the Cold War ended. But since 98 the reference review that you hear people say was brilliant it hasn’t halved it’s been generally fairly constant for the past 25 years in percentages. You don’t have to do a lot more with less that is a choice I’m very much in the do less with the same.

Many other smaller countries with a fraction of the defence budget we have done a much better job of balancing their national industry, budget and fielded output because they have had to spend money sensibly and with focus we continue to spend like we are awash with cash.

There is a lot of talk of “mass” but in no war since 91 has it been shown that mass beat’s technology in the fighting stage. If your looking at policing and or peacekeeping/nation building then yes you mass as you need to be persistent but we in the west can only really do that thru alliances and sharing of tasks. Which is why with our allies we need to choice were we commit our forces day to day.

There certainly has been political mistakes in committing to, too many open ended or questionable operations absolutely but in sense of what needs bought or otherwise I don’t think politicians have much of clue about the equipment often referred to. Infact I think most couldn’t tell the difference between ships to be honest or vehicle or planes.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 10:44 Infact I think most couldn’t tell the difference between ships to be honest or vehicle or planes.
Must be ex RAF then :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Tempest414 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 01:19 yes but they were replaced with 16 Type 23 so in 2004 we had 20 frigates 4 x T-22 B3 and 16 Type 23 this dropped to 17 when the 3 T-23's were sold off

In real terms we should have kept 16 frigates we should have replaced the T-22's with 6 new GP frigates and Type 23 with 10 new ASW frigates
Originally, the Type 23s were intended to replace the Type 21s and remaining upgraded Leanders. When those got paid off rapidly after 1991 the logical next target were the early Batch 22s, as the frigate fleet was cut whilst maintaining the shipbuilding work.

Keeping the Batch 3 22s and selling off new Type 23s always stuck me as a mistake, particularly considering their smaller crews and VLS. HMS Grafton would be fairly useful right now.

Your six GP frigates could well have been based on Type 45, as there was an interim frigate concept around that time to replace the last of the Type 22s. Reduced AAW spec and a land attack focus, which could be not a million miles away from a Type 31 with mk.41.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
Tempest414

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 10:44 Many other smaller countries with a fraction of the defence budget we have done a much better job of balancing their national industry, budget and fielded output because they have had to spend money sensibly and with focus we continue to spend like we are awash with cash.
There is definitely an element of making political promises beyond the budget, but the mix and individual unit cost per platform isn’t the issue. The RN rightly decided on a smaller high end surface fleet which centred on CEPP.

It’s questionable however whether it can afford a mid tier and a second warship builder, but that’s as much political as anything. The RN/UK can afford and absolutely needs to fight the ever present “grey-war” a bottom tier of OSVs, MRoSSs, LSVs and OPVs which is starting to happen. There is zero need to buy more light Frigates though, and there isn’t even a need for the five T31s on order as originally envisaged which is why everyone is celebrating the talk of MK41 VLS tubes even with little to go in. If this is where you are pointing your “we continue to spend like we are awash with cash” comment, I completely agree.

Short term start / stop tendencies driven by short term cash savings is the other reason.
”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: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 09:23
SW1 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 10:44 Many other smaller countries with a fraction of the defence budget we have done a much better job of balancing their national industry, budget and fielded output because they have had to spend money sensibly and with focus we continue to spend like we are awash with cash.
There is definitely an element of making political promises beyond the budget, but the mix and individual unit cost per platform isn’t the issue. The RN rightly decided on a smaller high end surface fleet which centred on CEPP.

It’s questionable however whether it can afford a mid tier and a second warship builder, but that’s as much political as anything. The RN/UK can afford and absolutely needs to fight the ever present “grey-war” a bottom tier of OSVs, MRoSSs, LSVs and OPVs which is starting to happen. There is zero need to buy more light Frigates though, and there isn’t even a need for the five T31s on order as originally envisaged which is why everyone is celebrating the talk of MK41 VLS tubes even with little to go in. If this is where you are pointing your “we continue to spend like we are awash with cash” comment, I completely agree.

Short term start / stop tendencies driven by short term cash savings is the other reason.
The RN sort indicated it wanted a high end surface fleet then reacted in horror when the politicians went ok that’s all you are getting and back peddled faster than a French fleet!
I don’t see the massive difference some claim mk41 makes at this stage to be honest. I would prefer to see 8 or 16 NSM canisters added to the original spec more so than mk41.

It will be controversial but imo in high end pier warfare the RN surface fleet is irrelevant the submarine surface is their only player. The surface fleet if for policing and 2nd tier conflict.

No that’s not what I mean about wasting money, it’s never ending spending on endless experiments without ever having a clear plan to ensure the R&D spending delivers to end user. Over complication and specing, failing to maximise equipment development/purchases and continually changing course causing everyone especially its personnel lots of grief. Failure to prioritise and stick to it.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 10:44 There is a lot of talk of “mass” but in no war since 91 has it been shown that mass beat’s technology in the fighting stage.
There has been no serious peer on peer naval clash for many generations hence why the theory of mass is currently unpopular.

I think it’s more straightforward than you suggest.

When the Defence spend as a proportion of GDP dropped, RN had to run the R&D and design programs to introduce new classes but with the costs divided between an everdecreasing number of hulls.

- What would be the average cost of a QE CVF if the UK had of built 3?

- What would a T45 have cost if the UK had of built 12?

- What would a T26 have cost if the UK had if built 15?

- What would Astute have cost if the UK had of ordered 12?

- How would the Amphib fleet look today if the UK had of procured 3 Oceans, 3 Albions and 6 Bays?

You can’t always blame RN. The fleet is half of the size it should be and it is the politicians from various administrations over the years that are responsible. Today, everyone realises it was a mistake to reduce capability to current levels but now there is no money to resurrect it, so the easiest thing to do is to blame the Royal Navy for its own decline.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
serge750

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 10:01 The RN sort indicated it wanted a high end surface fleet then reacted in horror when the politicians went ok that’s all you are getting and back peddled faster than a French fleet!
The fact that the RN will be spending the majority of its cash on T26s, SSNs and capabilities for the carriers proves it still wants it.

The so called back peddling was forced by politics and the Treasury who thought a £250mn fringe was a good idea - this once again has been proved a folly for the ignorant.

Whilst I wasn’t there I’m pretty sure there that would have been a robust discussion within the RN about aiming for a few more T26s over the T31. What probably killed it was again the government’s reluctance to commit to long term batch 2 T26 orders, which if rumour is true BAE was willing to build 9 for the price of 8.
SW1 wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 10:01 It will be controversial but imo in high end pier warfare the RN surface fleet is irrelevant the submarine surface is their only player. The surface fleet if for policing and 2nd tier conflict.
SSNs / XLUUVs will have a major role to play for sure. Even putting aside the military effect, the fact that you have a globally deployable invisible asset that the government will not talk about where they are is ingenious for the government that can spend less but talk big. Hopefully with AUKUS however this fleet will grow.

However, to say that the UK does not need maritime war fighting capabilities above the water is delusional. CEPP (through CSGs/ESGs) will be the countries maritime sword and the SSNs (and MPAs) the shield. We need both, and whilst I would have push for three, two CSGs/ESGs, albeit limited is the right balance for the budget.

Where I do have an issue is these mythical “2nd tier conflicts” they do not exist, everything has the potential to become a cluster f@ck tier one conflict. The days of colonial sloops slapping wrists to the peace is assign to history. What we have is a multi-player, complex, global grey war going on and we need the right low-end assets to work with our allies to prevent conflict (with the threat of the big tier one war fighting stick behind our backs).
”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: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 10:29
SW1 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 10:44 There is a lot of talk of “mass” but in no war since 91 has it been shown that mass beat’s technology in the fighting stage.
There has been no serious peer on peer naval clash for many generations hence why the theory of mass is currently unpopular.

I think it’s more straightforward than you suggest.

When the Defence spend as a proportion of GDP dropped, RN had to run the R&D and design programs to introduce new classes but with the costs divided between an everdecreasing number of hulls.

- What would be the average cost of a QE CVF if the UK had of built 3?

- What would a T45 have cost if the UK had of built 12?

- What would a T26 have cost if the UK had if built 15?

- What would Astute have cost if the UK had of ordered 12?

- How would the Amphib fleet look today if the UK had of procured 3 Oceans, 3 Albions and 6 Bays?

You can’t always blame RN. The fleet is half of the size it should be and it is the politicians from various administrations over the years that are responsible. Today, everyone realises it was a mistake to reduce capability to current levels but now there is no money to resurrect it, so the easiest thing to do is to blame the Royal Navy for its own decline.
All those programs bar astute started after 1998 sdsr where as the graph you originally showed hasn’t dropped that much. All the surface ship programs blew out their budget hence unit numbers were reduced to stay within that budget agreed at commencing the program, over ambitious, disingenuous accounting ect ect. The same old defence failing despite more reforms than you can shake a stick at.

What would the price have been had we licensed built an Iver huithfield configured aaw ship, license built a fremm frigate design or a cavour aircraft carrier design? What if we had spent the R&D in combat management systems, radars, sonars and weapons systems and integrated them into license built designs.

What if we had spent more on submarines rather than make Barrow build wave knight and the lpds?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 10:01 No that’s not what I mean about wasting money, it’s never ending spending on endless experiments without ever having a clear plan to ensure the R&D spending delivers to end user. Over complication and specing, failing to maximise equipment development/purchases and continually changing course causing everyone especially its personnel lots of grief. Failure to prioritise and stick to it.
Now I do agree with this, but for me it’s on par with the “2nd tier conflict” obsession.
”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: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 10:41
SW1 wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 10:01 The RN sort indicated it wanted a high end surface fleet then reacted in horror when the politicians went ok that’s all you are getting and back peddled faster than a French fleet!
The fact that the RN will be spending the majority of its cash on T26s, SSNs and capabilities for the carriers proves it still wants it.

The so called back peddling was forced by politics and the Treasury who thought a £250mn fringe was a good idea - this once again has been proved a folly for the ignorant.

Whilst I wasn’t there I’m pretty sure there that would have been a robust discussion within the RN about aiming for a few more T26s over the T31. What probably killed it was again the government’s reluctance to commit to long term batch 2 T26 orders, which if rumour is true BAE was willing to build 9 for the price of 8.
SW1 wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 10:01 It will be controversial but imo in high end pier warfare the RN surface fleet is irrelevant the submarine surface is their only player. The surface fleet if for policing and 2nd tier conflict.
SSNs / XLUUVs will have a major role to play for sure. Even putting aside the military effect, the fact that you have a globally deployable invisible asset that the government will not talk about where they are is ingenious for the government that can spend less but talk big. Hopefully with AUKUS however this fleet will grow.

However, to say that the UK does not need maritime war fighting capabilities above the water is delusional. CEPP (through CSGs/ESGs) will be the countries maritime sword and the SSNs (and MPAs) the shield. We need both, and whilst I would have push for three, two CSGs/ESGs, albeit limited is the right balance for the budget.

Where I do have an issue is these mythical “2nd tier conflicts” they do not exist, everything has the potential to become a cluster f@ck tier one conflict. The days of colonial sloops slapping wrists to the peace is assign to history. What we have is a multi-player, complex, global grey war going on and we need the right low-end assets to work with our allies to prevent conflict (with the threat of the big tier one war fighting stick behind our backs).
No it was the RN claiming type 26 would be a £250m pound frigate originally no one else. The government/treasury allocated a budget of around £10 billion for the frigate replacement program the RN could have order 100 rivers for that budget or 9 type 26s or anything in between. What happened was the RN we want 13 type 26 and the government went ok what’s that cost and they went 13 billion. Government went your budget it 10 billion your not getting any more so either cut something or come up with a different plan.

Not it doesn’t there have been and continue to be lots of conflicts with people who aren’t Russia and China (high end conflict) and issues below conflict with Russia or China. The RN surface fleet can be equipped for such conflict. It’s certainly not about colonial sloops slapping wrist, infact the less we have to do with worrying about conflict on land beyond our select group allied countries and dependant territories the better.

Our tier 1 warfighting big stick is and should be the nuclear submarine fleet not the surface fleet.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

The RAF's attempts to re-write history is always most amusing. If they gave as much attention to prospective enemies that they give to the other two services, they would be a much more effective fighting force.

Every RAF idea/initiative/plan for the other services is basically to reduce their spending in order to boost theirs.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 11:02 No it was the RN claiming type 26 would be a £250m pound frigate originally no one else. The government/treasury allocated a budget of around £10 billion for the frigate replacement program the RN could have order 100 rivers for that budget or 9 type 26s or anything in between. What happened was the RN we want 13 type 26 and the government went ok what’s that cost and they went 13 billion. Government went your budget it 10 billion your not getting any more so either cut something or come up with a different plan.
If it was really £250mn why was £10bn allocated? I agree that the budget was what the RN had to live within, but there are three fundamental things that drove things to the conclusion:

- the bias against BAE was clear, they were blamed for inflating costs, rather than realising that what these were caused primarily by the RN and government with their requirements and famine and feast approach. With all the bells and whistles that are being added to the T31 the cost will be far north of £250mn.

- the RN could have got 10 or more T26s if the government had committed upfront. Whilst I would argue this would have been a better outcome, politics and political top-trump attitudes made reducing the escort fleet size impossible.

- the Government wanted to use the RN as an economic stimulant for exports; creating a second warship shipbuilder was never about the requirement.
SW1 wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 11:02 Not it doesn’t there have been and continue to be lots of conflicts with people who aren’t Russia and China (high end conflict) and issues below conflict with Russia or China. The RN surface fleet can be equipped for such conflict. It’s certainly not about colonial sloops slapping wrist, infact the less we have to do with worrying about conflict on land beyond our select group allied countries and dependant territories the better.
Agree on the land conflict comment. Completely disagree on the rest, there is a new global game going on. There will for sure be limited local ground flash points, but most conflicts, especially if there is a maritime impact, will be backed by one of the major powers. The proliferation of sophisticated but cheap capabilities makes even a fully kitted warship vulnerable, let alone a light frigate pretending it can do it cheaper.
SW1 wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 11:02 Our tier 1 warfighting big stick is and should be the nuclear submarine fleet not the surface fleet.
SSNs are about sea control, as soon as they launch something they become a target. Also, WW2 should again the limitations of subs when you aren’t able to control the skys. CEPP is critical.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Type 31 will end up costing around 320 to 340 million but for that it will have

1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 32 Mk-41 cells 8 x NSM and TAS

Type 26 will end up costing around 880 million and will come as spec'ed

Type 31 is not trying to be a frigate it is a frigate and if it comes as above it will be a very good global Patrol frigate
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Jensy

Post Reply