Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

Not bad.

Yes but not great either.

Your reasoning is solid but RN has been messing around with these half fixes with suboptimal outcomes for years.

It’s difficult to reach any other conclusion apart from the thinking isn’t entirely joined up.

[tomuk]

Surely for a platform agnostic solution it would need to be based on the dimensions of a Pacific RHIB which all vessels can handle both RN and other navies.

That is the simplest solution but RN have chosen not to do it and therefore all kinds of logistical contortions will be enviable downstream.

Justifying an entire class of five Frigates to accommodate a system is crazy if shrinking the LOA by 15% solves it.

If this is the justification for the T32 it’s going to be a hard sell to HMT.

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

[Tempest414]

Not bad.

Yes but not great either.

Your reasoning is solid but RN has been messing around with these half fixes with suboptimal outcomes for years.

It’s difficult to reach any other conclusion apart from the thinking isn’t entirely joined up.

It will be interesting to see the Starboard side of the first T-31 now its built so little coming out about T-31

[Repulse]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

Maybe not, but having the ability to operate boats larger than a pacific 24 is pretty fundamental for modern warship designs.

[tomuk]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

Maybe not, but having the ability to operate boats larger than a pacific 24 is pretty fundamental for modern warship designs.

Is it? What frigates and destroyers can handle a bigger than 9.5m boat?

[Repulse]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

Maybe not, but having the ability to operate boats larger than a pacific 24 is pretty fundamental for modern warship designs.

Is it? What frigates and destroyers can handle a bigger than 9.5m boat?

Type 26 for one, Freedom class for another

[tomuk]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

Maybe not, but having the ability to operate boats larger than a pacific 24 is pretty fundamental for modern warship designs.

Is it? What frigates and destroyers can handle a bigger than 9.5m boat?

Type 26 for one, Freedom class for another

First Freedom class isn't a frigate or Destroyer some might call it a corvette and a not very successful one at that.

On T26 there are some who say its mission bay is wasted on a ASW frigate that will be dedicated to CSG\TAPs and not carrying out any singleton deployments.

[Scimitar54]

May be so, but then it was not designed as a dedicated CSG/TAPS escort! It was designed as a GLOBAL COMBAT SHIP, capable of (if not mainly) singleton deployments. One of unintended consequences the cut in T26 numbers “to save money” has left expensively outfitted ships, that in practice may be restricted to performing just one of their intended roles whilst having the “Weapons Fit” for their original purpose.

The T26 design had far too long a gestation period and should have been (and still should be) built in greater numbers.

T31 in

[Poiuytrewq]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

So what is the justification for the T32 class?

[Repulse]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

Maybe not, but having the ability to operate boats larger than a pacific 24 is pretty fundamental for modern warship designs.

Is it? What frigates and destroyers can handle a bigger than 9.5m boat?

Type 26 for one, Freedom class for another

First Freedom class isn't a frigate or Destroyer some might call it a corvette and a not very successful one at that.

So the Freedom class isn’t a Frigate but the T31 is - I’m really trying to avoid circular discussions (especially on costs), but this is getting surreal.

On T26 there are some who say its mission bay is wasted on a ASW frigate that will be dedicated to CSG\TAPs and not carrying out any singleton deployments.

It’s not wasted, it’s just that we’ve not bought enough (again not wanting to get into circular arguments).

If you think it’s so unusual to be able to handle boats larger than 7.5m I’ll add some more modern designs that can do it for you to ponder on:
- Atago-class
- FREMM (Italian GP version)
- F125 Baden-Württemberg-class frigates

I can find more if you’d like.

[Repulse]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

So what is the justification for the T32 class?

As a second batch of T31s there isn’t one

[SW1]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

So what is the justification for the T32 class?

To expand the escort force to 24 to cover the standing patrols we have neglected for too long I would off guessed.

[Tempest414]

May be so, but then it was not designed as a dedicated CSG/TAPS escort! It was designed as a GLOBAL COMBAT SHIP, capable of (if not mainly) singleton deployments. One of unintended consequences the cut in T26 numbers “to save money” has left expensively outfitted ships, that in practice may be restricted to performing just one of their intended roles whilst having the “Weapons Fit” for their original purpose.

The T26 design had far too long a gestation period and should have been (and still should be) built in greater numbers.

T31 in

Type 26 has in many ways got out of hand it took to long to design and kept getting bigger and bigger as the RN tried to make it into the all singing and dancing GCS. Type 26 is a good ship in fact it was the perfect frigate for the USN but the RN should have got there heads down to building a world class ASW frigate and not a GCS with world class ASW capability

[donald_of_tokyo]

May be so, but then it was not designed as a dedicated CSG/TAPS escort! It was designed as a GLOBAL COMBAT SHIP, capable of (if not mainly) singleton deployments. One of unintended consequences the cut in T26 numbers “to save money” has left expensively outfitted ships, that in practice may be restricted to performing just one of their intended roles whilst having the “Weapons Fit” for their original purpose.

The T26 design had far too long a gestation period and should have been (and still should be) built in greater numbers.

T31 in

Type 26 has in many ways got out of hand it took to long to design and kept getting bigger and bigger as the RN tried to make it into the all singing and dancing GCS. Type 26 is a good ship in fact it was the perfect frigate for the USN but the RN should have got there heads down to building a world class ASW frigate and not a GCS with world class ASW capability

Reasonable argument. However, I am not so much "against" current T26. ASW frigate is NOT always doing ASW. Actually, ASW tasks happens in very limited theater. When CSG deploys, using multi-purpose T26 is very good.

What is good about T26's mission bay is, it can add anything in future.

- Why not think about ARCIMS SeaSense ASW kit as an addition? In shallow water, surely T26 ASW "detection range" get much shorter. Having ARCIMS SeaSense ASW kit will dramatically improve the ASW capability.

- When the CSG is getting though a choke point, sending "patrol" USV around will be very helpful to improve security. If it be 2 or 3 ARCIMS USV, just add a patrol kit with sensor and RWS. Also, T26 can send ARCIMS with capable side-scan sonar to clear the area of mines.

T26 can do them all, no need to send other assets. Just good.

Problem is, RN not going to invest on these "USV kits". Let's hope it happens.

[new guy]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

So what is the justification for the T32 class?

As a second batch of T31s there isn’t one

Increase number of escorts.

[new guy]

May be so, but then it was not designed as a dedicated CSG/TAPS escort! It was designed as a GLOBAL COMBAT SHIP, capable of (if not mainly) singleton deployments. One of unintended consequences the cut in T26 numbers “to save money” has left expensively outfitted ships, that in practice may be restricted to performing just one of their intended roles whilst having the “Weapons Fit” for their original purpose.

The T26 design had far too long a gestation period and should have been (and still should be) built in greater numbers.

T31 in

Type 26 has in many ways got out of hand it took to long to design and kept getting bigger and bigger as the RN tried to make it into the all singing and dancing GCS. Type 26 is a good ship in fact it was the perfect frigate for the USN but the RN should have got there heads down to building a world class ASW frigate and not a GCS with world class ASW capability

Absolutely not. Single role ships are a luxury for the very largest navies. Falklands proved this beyond any doubt.

[Pte. James Frazer]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

So what is the justification for the T32 class?

As a second batch of T31s there isn’t one

That's a somewhat scurrilous statement...

Fact is no-one is quite certain what the precise specification of the 'as-is' (on contact) T31 for £250m per unit is (e.g. 0, 12, 24 or how many soft launch CAMM included?; size of boat bays to accommodate 7.5m, 9.5m or 11m boats?). What 'extra specs' might the RN have budgeted within the additonal £750m within the overall £2bn programme cost. Again unknown.

Lots of speculation based on changeable CGIs/models issued by Babcock.

There's now, it appears, an aspiration to fit Mk41 and maybe NSM. Hopefully Peregrine, armed USV Pac 24s, RM CRCs etc.). Timing and load out are the only points of debate.

So it appears that the folly of such an underspecced hull (some here might say oversized OPV+) in a more malign world than when the spec was conceived has been realised. Luckily then, or through good judgement, they specified a hull that could be upspecced without complications.

So referring to the 'on contract' T31 as useless is old news and hence scurrilous.

'Evolved' T31 could/should fill important 'gaps' in commitments - SNMGs, CTFs, FRE even CSG/LRG escort).

Leave RB2s where they are until the RN has more manpower.

Nothing wrong with looking towards T32 as an A140 MNP derivative or similar. A140 MNP has the merit of being a derivative design (i.e., lower risk) from a 'hot' production line.

Any UxV mothership needs to be substantially self escorting, imo, and that means more than a 40mm/57mm gun as proposed by Aitken of BMT, in his RINA paper of 2018 that someone referenced.

Otherwise the 'Channel stand-off' UxV mothership (as defined) needs an escort and you're then into 'Area Standoff' task groups.

The threats have got more complex and denser since Mr. Aitken wrote his justification for a 'City Class' esque 85m MCMV mothership.

Imo.

[Repulse]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

So what is the justification for the T32 class?

As a second batch of T31s there isn’t one

That's a somewhat scurrilous statement...

Depends on your PoV - without going down another rabbit hole, my view is that the UK needs to focus on quality over mass. Outside of UK / BOT defence it needs to have capabilities that are tier one, not just replicas of most of our allies, especially given the over reliance within NATO on the US - this is why CSGs, SSNs, AAW, ASW, MCM and BMD for example is more important than light GP frigates. In this case IMO there is no basis for a batch 2 T31.

Everyone else disagrees, I get that, but it’s a valid viewpoint and the obsession with mass over quality / capability is dangerous IMO.

[Poiuytrewq]

So it appears that the folly of such an underspecced hull (some here might say oversized OPV+) in a more malign world than when the spec was conceived has been realised. Luckily then, or through good judgement, they specified a hull that could be upspecced without complications.

The Treasury under the dear departed Geo Osborne set the budget, the number of ships, the builder and the build location. He didn't give two hoots about defense other than a source of money to fund his other ridiculous schemes.

The Navy managed to squeak out a large empty ship (dumping the awful AH120) that they might be able to upgrade later. Geo didn't care as long as it was within his parameters - budget, location etc.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Depends on your PoV - without going down another rabbit hole, my view is that the UK needs to focus on quality over mass. Outside of UK / BOT defence it needs to have capabilities that are tier one, not just replicas of most of our allies, especially given the over reliance within NATO on the US - this is why CSGs, SSNs, AAW, ASW, MCM and BMD for example is more important than light GP frigates. In this case IMO there is no basis for a batch 2 T31.

Everyone else disagrees, I get that, but it’s a valid viewpoint and the obsession with mass over quality / capability is dangerous IMO.

I am a bit neutral.

"Quality AND Mass balanced", is not so bad. As such 5 T31, with 14 tier-1 escorts, is OK for me.

"Quality not Mass" is also not bad. I guess this means 16 or 17 tier-1 escorts. But unfortunately, UK has already invested on T31, and changing the way will never "pay back" the investment. Even selling all 5 T31, the money will not even bring 2 T26. The only case this option becomes valid is, when the man-power crisis gets even worse (unfortunately, this will be with non-negligible possibility ....)

"Mass not Quality" is I have no preference.

[Tempest414]

May be so, but then it was not designed as a dedicated CSG/TAPS escort! It was designed as a GLOBAL COMBAT SHIP, capable of (if not mainly) singleton deployments. One of unintended consequences the cut in T26 numbers “to save money” has left expensively outfitted ships, that in practice may be restricted to performing just one of their intended roles whilst having the “Weapons Fit” for their original purpose.

The T26 design had far too long a gestation period and should have been (and still should be) built in greater numbers.

T31 in

Type 26 has in many ways got out of hand it took to long to design and kept getting bigger and bigger as the RN tried to make it into the all singing and dancing GCS. Type 26 is a good ship in fact it was the perfect frigate for the USN but the RN should have got there heads down to building a world class ASW frigate and not a GCS with world class ASW capability

Absolutely not. Single role ships are a luxury for the very largest navies. Falklands proved this beyond any doubt.

Did it how?

[Pte. James Frazer]

But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.

So what is the justification for the T32 class?

As a second batch of T31s there isn’t one

That's a somewhat scurrilous statement...

Depends on your PoV - without going down another rabbit hole, my view is that the UK needs to focus on quality over mass. Outside of UK / BOT defence it needs to have capabilities that are tier one, not just replicas of most of our allies, especially given the over reliance within NATO on the US - this is why CSGs, SSNs, AAW, ASW, MCM and BMD for example is more important than light GP frigates. In this case IMO there is no basis for a batch 2 T31.

Everyone else disagrees, I get that, but it’s a valid viewpoint and the obsession with mass over quality / capability is dangerous IMO.

I actually don't disagree with your high end argument.

I'm arguing that you can turn T31 into a pretty strong local area AAW/ASuW frigate/escort (a damn site better than a T23 GP) and task group goalkeeper/potentially networked missile silo.

A silk purse from a sow's ear.

I also believe that high end MCM will require more than an 85m UxV mothership, whether commercial PSV derivative or bespoke 'City Class' style design because we don't have the 'mass' to escort those into harms way.

Hence why I think an A140 MNP style T32 self escorting UxV mothership meets your high end argument for MCM and able to be re-rolled to littoral multistatic ASW, RM raiding.....

[Repulse]

]I actually don't disagree with your high end argument.

I'm arguing that you can turn T31 into a pretty strong local area AAW/ASuW frigate/escort (a damn site better than a T23 GP) and task group goalkeeper/potentially networked missile silo.

A silk purse from a sow's ear.

I also believe that high end MCM will require more than an 85m UxV mothership, whether commercial PSV derivative or bespoke 'City Class' style design because we don't have the 'mass' to escort those into harms way.

Hence why I think an A140 MNP style T32 self escorting UxV mothership meets your high end argument for MCM and able to be re-rolled to littoral multistatic ASW, RM raiding.....

Don’t really want to discuss upgrading the T31, we’ve done that to death and it’s all speculation without funding.

Agree on MCM that the answer is not a single platform, rather than multiple platforms that have hybrid roles dependent on the specific requirement being fulfilled (and reflecting the threat level of that requirement). Whatever the answer however, the RN should not give up its position in the top tier of MCM.

What in your view would a T32 have that a T26 does not?

[new guy]

Any UxV mothership needs to be substantially self escorting, imo, and that means more than a 40mm/57mm gun as proposed by Aitken of BMT, in his RINA paper of 2018 that someone referenced.

Otherwise the 'Channel stand-off' UxV mothership (as defined) needs an escort and you're then into 'Area Standoff' task groups.

The threats have got more complex and denser since Mr. Aitken wrote his justification for a 'City Class' esque 85m MCMV mothership.

Imo.

MCMV's usually move in task groups. Look at how NATOMCMMG1&2, Kipion, or just general, Especially in wartime. They are there to make way for the main group after all.
Of-course, SHORAD I approve off, be it 40mm or LMM turrets.
However, that doesn't mean you need to:

a) Buy a 3x more expensive to purchase and operate vessel.
b) Hinder an escort by trying to add or fit on 30 meters length of work deck space.

[Pte. James Frazer]

]I actually don't disagree with your high end argument.

I'm arguing that you can turn T31 into a pretty strong local area AAW/ASuW frigate/escort (a damn site better than a T23 GP) and task group goalkeeper/potentially networked missile silo.

A silk purse from a sow's ear.

I also believe that high end MCM will require more than an 85m UxV mothership, whether commercial PSV derivative or bespoke 'City Class' style design because we don't have the 'mass' to escort those into harms way.

Hence why I think an A140 MNP style T32 self escorting UxV mothership meets your high end argument for MCM and able to be re-rolled to littoral multistatic ASW, RM raiding.....

Don’t really want to discuss upgrading the T31, we’ve done that to death and it’s all speculation without funding.

Agree on MCM that the answer is not a single platform, rather than multiple platforms that have hybrid roles dependent on the specific requirement being fulfilled (and reflecting the threat level of that requirement). Whatever the answer however, the RN should not give up its position in the top tier of MCM.

What in your view would a T32 have that a T26 does not?

Rather what wouldn't it have.

Not a 5", not a MT30, fancy gearbox, electric drive nor other gold plated T26 ASW noise abatement measures to pipework etc.

So would have features: Central mission bay certainly, stern ramp possibly, Mk41 VLS, 57mm & 40mm, hull mounted mine avoidance radar a requirement, deagaussing as required, main engine & generator rafting/active mounts/sound abatement enclosure etc. ideally. I'd be looking for that on a A140 MNP derivative at (stab) ~ £400-450m/unit cost.

With its mission bay T26 could certainly do the stand-off mission with ARCIMS, but should it at ~ £850m/unit? That's overkill to me. They're precious and need to be kept out of minefields for TAPS, High North/Atlantic, CSG.