Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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: 20 Jan 2022, 02:02 Remaining 2 T31 and whatever number of T32s (or if 3 T32 is to replace Persian gulf operation, all 5 T31) shall be used for what? NATO fleet, FRE and Caribbean etc are the tasks listed for T31. Here, we can see big discussion on "how to uparm T31". For example, what will be needed for NATO standing fleet on Atlantic and Mediterranean?
Donald you've answered your own question. When 3 of the five River B2 return to home waters to replace the B1s the T31s will fill the gap. The T32 will just ease the burden the T31s and for that matter T23ASW/T26/T45 can't be everywhere. T32 can be in the attached to Nato STMG in Europe and add to operations in Gulf/Pacific. They could also sail with the carrier and add a bit of weight to the CSG and keep the miles down on the other escorts for example during the recent deployment the T45/T23 could of stayed in port while the T32/T31 carried out the low level exercises with Brunei etc.

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: 20 Jan 2022, 02:32 But, if north Atlantic is really really important,
If the North Atlantic is max importanto that's where all the T23ASW/T26 will be with at least one of the carriers acting as Mothership for all the available Merlins we have plus the Astutes and P8s they won't be gallivanting round the Indian/Pacific ocean.

In more normal times I'd rather spend £2bn on 10 reasonable hulls rather than on two top class ones.

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: 20 Jan 2022, 02:49In more normal times I'd rather spend £2bn on 10 reasonable hulls rather than on two top class ones.
??
£2bn will not provide "10 reasonable hulls". French FDI needed £3.3Bn for 5 so-so frigates. I guess you are including the "up-arming of T31"?

Then, £2bn provide not only "two top class escorts (£1.6B)", but also "5 reasonable hulls (T31mod £400M)". Or, "one top class escort (£800M)", and "7 or 8 reasonable hulls (5 T31mod (£400M), and 2 or 3 T31 Batch2 as T32 (£800M))", I guess...

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Firstly I would like to say the idea that Type 31 has no sub surface defence has been put to bed as Babcock has stated it will be fitted with Sea Sentor

Also as said if type 31 was to be given 24 Mk-41 plus 8 NSM it becomes a useful ship capable of many tasks from carrier point defence to SNMG ops and it could carry

32 CAMM , 8 NSM
32 CAMM , 32 VL Hellfire , 8 NSM
64 CAMM , 8 ASROC , 8 NSM
32 CAMM , 16 Tomahawk Blk V , 8 NSM
the list goes on

so a type 31 on SNMG 1 could carry 32 CAMM , 32 Hellfire , 8 NSM a type 31 on Carrier escort could carry 64 CAMM , 8 Tomahawk V , 8 NSM . Or if we had 10 of these ships two could come together and carry between them 96 CAMM , 24 Tomahawk V and 16 NSM

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

We'll be lucky to see Type 31 with Mk41 and FCASW by 2030
These users liked the author Defiance for the post:
Lord Jim

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

I doubt we'll see Mk41 on T31 at all....but the fact that RN has been discussing it publically indicates a clear desire to increase it's capability beyond that which was originally envisioned....which is good.
These users liked the author dmereifield for the post (total 2):
DefianceJensy

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 10:51 Firstly I would like to say the idea that Type 31 has no sub surface defence has been put to bed as Babcock has stated it will be fitted with Sea Sentor
True, but not related to ASW capable. For example, a version of Sea Sentor is also installed in some RFA vessels. Also, RNZN TeKaha class (light) frigates has Sea Sentor AND hull-sonar AND AS-torpedo, with SeaSprite helicopter. Still it is clear T31 is not designed to do ASW tasks.

But, yes T31 having STDS is very important. It will save time, so that air-cover ASW assets can hunt the SSK/SSN attacked her.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Defiance wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 11:51 We'll be lucky to see Type 31 with Mk41 and FCASW by 2030
I agree however we could see NSM and Maybe Mk-41 with Tomahawk Blk V by 2030 if we wanted

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 17:00 I agree however we could see NSM and Maybe Mk-41 with Tomahawk Blk V by 2030 if we wanted
Probably not, we can't even stump up the money for I-SSGW. Type 31 #1 hits the water in 2027 and FCASW is supposed to be operational at sea in 2028. Why waste time and money bringing in NSM at all in that case?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

It’s all about where the navy wants to spend it’s budget and what it wishes to prioritise…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Defiance wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 17:42
Tempest414 wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 17:00 I agree however we could see NSM and Maybe Mk-41 with Tomahawk Blk V by 2030 if we wanted
Probably not, we can't even stump up the money for I-SSGW. Type 31 #1 hits the water in 2027 and FCASW is supposed to be operational at sea in 2028. Why waste time and money bringing in NSM at all in that case?
Do we think this will happen

the first 31 should be in the water by 2025 and the second by 26

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 17:00
Defiance wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 11:51 We'll be lucky to see Type 31 with Mk41 and FCASW by 2030
I agree however we could see NSM and Maybe Mk-41 with Tomahawk Blk V by 2030 if we wanted
The problem is which refits take precedence?

Currently we have IIRC four T23's in the middle of going through Lifex - once they have finished, that should be the last major refits required for any of the 12 remaining T23's.

Second in importance is for the six T45's to all go through Power Improvement Programme, as without it they can literally stall if its gets a bit warm!! It looks like Dauntless has almost finished PIP, and with Daring just having started PIP. Ideally at the same time as PIP they could add in firstly maxed VLS tubes (I would prefer Mk41 for the flexibility but if it is just quad-packed CAMMS that will still help in their primary AAW mission) and secondly upgrade Harpoon to Block II+.

That covers everything currently afloat- that just leaves the T26's and T31's underconstruction. Ideally the earlier they could have additional VLS tubes and ASM Canisters added, the better, as presumably cheaper and quicker to do as ships are being completed. But we need to be wary of MOD incurring cost overruns or construction delays due to any construction changes. Otherwise for the eralier ships that might have to wait for a subsequent refit, as there is some urgency to get both T26's and T31's ready for active service, as the number of escorts will drop still further as they are decommissioned e.g once HMS Montrose finishes it's cirrent mission in the Gulf.

There will need to be a lot of juggling around of refits to maximise escort ship availability until RN can get escort ships numbers up to 24+ ships again.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 17:56
Do we think this will happen
No, but if MOD won't shell out for an interim weapon for an optimistic 6 year gap, I doubt they'll do it in future when FCASW is even closer
Tempest414 wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 17:56the first 31 should be in the water by 2025 and the second by 26
Apologies, I meant ISD

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

So of interest when we talk about UK CSG and its escorts is the deployment of the French CSG coming up in Feb which will have

1 x Carrier , 1 x SSN , 2 x AAW destroyers , 1 x FREMM frigate , 1 x Aux ship

Plus

1 x Arleigh Burke US , 1 x F-100 class Spain , 1 x Greek frigate , 1 x Greek SSK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Moved over here from the type 83 thread

So for me the biggest problem the UK have is nothing is allowed to full fill its potential for fear it will affect another program like

The River B2 can't be fitted a 57mm , 2 x 20mm for fear it will be nearly as capable as a base line T-31

The T-31 can't be fitted with 24 VLS and sonar for fear it will be to close to a base line T-26

The Type 26 can't be fitted with a better radar and 48 VLS for fear it will be to close to a base line Type 45

we wont get a LHD / LHA / light carrier for fear we will lose a strike carrier
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
GarethDavies1Dahedd

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 12:17 Moved over here from the type 83 thread

So for me the biggest problem the UK have is nothing is allowed to full fill its potential for fear it will affect another program like

The River B2 can't be fitted a 57mm , 2 x 20mm for fear it will be nearly as capable as a base line T-31

The T-31 can't be fitted with 24 VLS and sonar for fear it will be to close to a base line T-26

The Type 26 can't be fitted with a better radar and 48 VLS for fear it will be to close to a base line Type 45

we wont get a LHD / LHA / light carrier for fear we will lose a strike carrier
I actually think the problem is that the RN isn't pairing ships closely enough to associated commitments (and requirements), or at least they aren't communicating it clearly enough.

I understand that over focusing platforms on specific roles / commitments can be dangerous. As the Falklands showed, having a fleet optmised for a conflict with Russia in the North Atlantic caused difficulties and losses, but there has to be a better balance.

The loose association and conflicting statements on platforms vs roles leaves it too open to interpretation. If I was sat in the Treasury, without clearer guidance I would be confused between the platforms you outline. It also leads to incoherent discussions / decisions on what is the required kit on a particular platform IMO.

For example;
- A QE Class is a fleet carrier required to provide for global strike and task group air support via F35Bs. It is not a commando helicopter carrier.
- A T45 escorts a QE class to protect it from missile attack.
- A T26 escort a QE class to protect it from surface and submarine attack. It is also required to prevent submarines threatening the CASD in the North Atlantic.
- etc...

By more clearly linking the platform to a role, the capabilities required become clearer / easier to define.

Obviously you need flexibility, but for example a CSG is flexible in terms of how it is deployed, but the Escort roles are still the same.

Lastly, I will use the example of the Kipion standing commitment. If you looked at it in isolation, what would be the capabilities required and then what would be the platform required. The RN website states:
Operation Kipion is our commitment to promoting peace and stability in the region, as well as ensuring the safe flow of oil and trade.
Focusing on the tangible "safe flow of trade" part - I think this translates to requirement to:
- Protecting multiple ships transiting through the Gulf protecting it from piracy and interference from hostile nations. The threats are primarily from mines, fast boats, shore based SSMs and mini submarines.

Now is the T31 being kitted to do this? Is more than one required? Is it even the right platform?
”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

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 »

Repulse wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 13:05
Operation Kipion is our commitment to promoting peace and stability in the region, as well as ensuring the safe flow of oil and trade.
Focusing on the tangible "safe flow of trade" part - I think this translates to requirement to:
- Protecting multiple ships transiting through the Gulf protecting it from piracy and interference from hostile nations. The threats are primarily from mines, fast boats, shore based SSMs and mini submarines.

Now is the T31 being kitted to do this? Is more than one required? Is it even the right platform?
Good point. But, any task at Persian Gulf is of allied operation, not stand alone. If UK want to defend the Gulf alone, UK will have to send a Division of Army, a few squadrons of fighters, and two CV with 6 escorts each.

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by GarethDavies1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 12:17 Moved over here from the type 83 thread

So for me the biggest problem the UK have is nothing is allowed to full fill its potential for fear it will affect another program like

The River B2 can't be fitted a 57mm , 2 x 20mm for fear it will be nearly as capable as a base line T-31

The T-31 can't be fitted with 24 VLS and sonar for fear it will be to close to a base line T-26

The Type 26 can't be fitted with a better radar and 48 VLS for fear it will be to close to a base line Type 45

we wont get a LHD / LHA / light carrier for fear we will lose a strike carrier
Totally agree...seems a very British way
These users liked the author GarethDavies1 for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoLord Jim

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 14:46
Repulse wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 13:05
Operation Kipion is our commitment to promoting peace and stability in the region, as well as ensuring the safe flow of oil and trade.
Focusing on the tangible "safe flow of trade" part - I think this translates to requirement to:
- Protecting multiple ships transiting through the Gulf protecting it from piracy and interference from hostile nations. The threats are primarily from mines, fast boats, shore based SSMs and mini submarines.

Now is the T31 being kitted to do this? Is more than one required? Is it even the right platform?
Good point. But, any task at Persian Gulf is of allied operation, not stand alone. If UK want to defend the Gulf alone, UK will have to send a Division of Army, a few squadrons of fighters, and two CV with 6 escorts each.
Completely agree, and my point is really around the day-to-day requirements for specifically the RN as part of an allied effort and linking it to what is required from a platform. I'm focusing in on this, and putting aside the fluffy "promoting peace and stability" as that could mean anything, and if we are going to get into a fight this is where the CSG (or elements of it) plus SSNs come into play.

I see Kipion as a unique commitment that is outside of the North Atlantic and requires more than a constabulary level forward based presence. My question is that as it's unique does it require a specific platform solution to ensure it is fit for purpose but also cost effective. For example should it be 4 MCMs (soon to be replaced by unmanned platforms) + 1 Bay + 1 T23/T31; or actually would 2-3 tailored ships be a better and more cost effective solution?

Given the requirement and operating environment could the platform:
- Be smaller and a shallower draft than a T23/T31 - no need to be designed to operate in winter conditions in the Atlantic.
- Have shorter endurance - operations would be a few thousand nm's and for weeks, not months with the ability to sail to the Falklands.
- Have a large work deck to allow easy handling of boats and unmanned systems.
- Have a helicopter platform only as maintenance can be done at land bases (given the close proximity).
- Have shallow water ASW capabilities and short range ASuW missiles (no need for a range of 100's of nm)
- Be similar to allied nation ships sharing common components to allow for cheap forward maintenance.
- etc...
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Fine idea, but what happens if you HAVE to deploy them somewhere else that they are not ideal for ?
This becomes more likely because you will have even fewer of the more capable vessels. The fewer the surface vessels (escorts) that the RN has, then the more versatile they will have to become. This is not a desirable outcome from a cost point of view, but it is (or will be) a consequence of inadequate numbers. With a return to “Proper Escort Numbers”, niche vessels MAY be seen as beneficial, but an RN with a requirement to operate Globally is unlikely to ever feel that it has enough “more capable vessels”. :mrgreen:

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Scimitar54 wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 18:28 Fine idea, but what happens if you HAVE to deploy them somewhere else that they are not ideal for?
I agree, this is the traditional thinking - every platform has to be flexible just in case it is needed elsewhere. I would still tend to agree for tier one assets that are expected to fight globally.

But my view is that the handful of forward based ships we are talking about would be better specialised to the requirement, allowing them to be cheaper, ensuring that funds are properly channelled to the war fighting core fleet.

We are probably talking about less than 10 forward based ships covering the 5 B2s (which should be adapted if/as required to be optimised for their region), 2 Ice Patrol Ships (Antarctic and Artic) and 2-3 “tailored” ships in the Gulf.
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Is that tailored for the Gulf in "Peace" time or conflict? The former is as we are now, whilst the latter would undoubtable require Tier 1 assets.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

If we don’t tailor our warships for War (or at least make them capable of it) then they are of not much deterrent effect to a potential adversary.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 01:32 Is that tailored for the Gulf in "Peace" time or conflict? The former is as we are now, whilst the latter would undoubtable require Tier 1 assets.
Tailored for "Peace Time" or the requirement in hand - as soon as it turn's hot they still have a role, but the CSG, SSNs etc would be the lead for sure.
Scimitar54 wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 05:45 If we don’t tailor our warships for War (or at least make them capable of it) then they are of not much deterrent effect to a potential adversary.
Disagree, there is nothing wrong IMO of having something that fits the day-to-day requirement and hence is an appropriate day-to-day deterrent, backed by layers of deterrent that can be applied as the requirement changes (up to the CSG / SSN level). With regular deployments and exercises the potential adversary will get the message.

My fear is that by trying to do the opposite, and focus on slightly more capable platforms then funds will be diverted from the fighting core and at the very least there will be the usual hidden cuts to training, deployments and things like ammunition stocks.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
donald_of_tokyo
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

We are talking about Escorts here, not Patrol Vessels. An Escort that is less than is required is a drain on the Funding (and crewing) for Escorts. If we had unlimited funding and crewing then it might seem to some to be a good idea, but where resources are seriously limited, it would be the height of folly.
The reason why we acquired OPVs was because of a correct application of what you are suggesting; The damage caused to Frigates that were being used to counter Icelandic Gunboats during the Cod Wars was seen as wasting a valuable asset and OPVs were seen as the necessary solution.
We had over 3 times the number of Escorts then and the rationale for increasing the ratio of OPVs to Escorts now is just not there!
We are using the OPVs we have now (in greater numbers than we really require) because they are what we have thanks to “Work Generation” (and we also do not have sufficient available Escorts).
I would much rather that we had Escorts constructed instead of the B2 Rivers, but we are where we are.
Insufficient armament of Warships may have been seen as acceptable during a prolonged period of peace, but is not acceptable at a time of increasing threat. FFBNW should at times like these, if still applied at all, only refer to the number of empty VLS tubes. :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply