Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Ron5]

The Type 31 was created by Geo Osborne to reduce the cost of defense and to keep Cameron's promise to the Scots on the number of frigates to be built there.

Not defense needs driven at all. Just a shabby, manipulative, weasel, self-promoting, politician doing shabby, manipulative, weasel, self-promoting stuff

Remember how his defense minded backbenchers cheered when he announced he would hold defense spending at 2% of GDP yet behind the scenes he implemented the most savage cuts to the forces they had seen in decades. Utter shyster.

[Repulse]

But you are confused in your thinking. The RB2 haven't replaced the OPVs they are standing in for T23GPs as they go through refit. The T23GPs will be replaced by T31

On paper the T31 is replacing the T23, but that is if you are only looking at it via through the political lens of the fleet wall chart.

The requirement is unclear to me, but looks very different to the Singleton deployment of the past, which involved not just the GP T23s, but all the DDs/FFs. The latter is now tied to the CSG, which has resulted in a new formation and ways of operating. Also, it needs to be seen in the context the western has moved from being one obsessed with COIN to one that has to face up to the fact that their supremacy is challenged by China and Russia. No longer can the west tackle the “small guys” in isolation - now the chances are that behind them are these state actors and a real chance it can quickly escalate.

So no, in my view the B2s aren’t standing in for the 5 GP T23s, the comparison is more complex. The Falklands, Gibraltar and the Caribbean haven’t had a frigate for decades. The two deployed to the Indo Pacific region are taking on a new role - which should be seen in combination with the CSG deployments.

The only deployment that stands out is in the Gulf. This where the threat level is not low, and is in fact growing as the inter state relationships deteriorate. The default would be to replace with a frigate, but we seem to be replacing with a less capable frigate, one probably capable of protecting itself enough to escape the Gulf, but cannot move the strategic dial itself. I’m also unsure it would be capable of protecting the broader RN fleet in the region. IMO, it would be better to have a couple of MHPC vessels capable of defending themselves, and using the CSG/SANs as the big stick when events dictate.

[Repulse]

Tempest414, I’ve used CBG and CSG interchangeably. If I had to make a difference, a CSG is about power projection, and a CBG is about sea denial. However, for RN purposes it’s the same core ships configured/tasked in slightly different ways.

I see no value of a ship primarily designed as a LHA. The FCF will not be configured to operate in a way to support a large number of troops that can be based on a single ship and deploy as a single unit to shore. In fact, in the FCF world this is legacy thinking - it’s putting your eggs in one basket too vulnerable to penetrate enemy A2AD layers.

Better to build a third CVF, or a specialised ASW Carrier. More of a Cavour than a LHA or LHD.

[Tempest414]

etter to build a third CVF, or a specialised ASW Carrier. More of a Cavour than a LHA or LHD.

Cavour is a LHA under the name Light carrier as it can carry 4 LCVP and 400 troops and I would be happy with a Cavour type ship 230 x 40 meters capable of carrying the same type of air-wing and up to 800 troops the key is flexibility it could be used as a ASW carrier , light escort carrier or a LHA but the point is we will never build another strike carrier for 40 years or more but we could get a 3rd flat top

[donald_of_tokyo]

On T31 (as is).

I agree T31 is a "budget required" ship. But, its rationale is well thought. I think it is a specialist gray-zone-war frigate. Fast boat swarm and cheap-ASM/suicide-UAV (=cheap) in surprise. These are the threats T31 is the best to counter among all RN assets; much better than T45 or T26. In BOTH hot war and quasi-war, annoying enemy using cheap strikes will continue. It is very logical tactics; forcing enemy to waste their precious resource to counter your cheap attack. So, T31 will find a job in all cases.

fast-boat swarm:
The 57mm gun with 3P (and possibly ALaMO rounds) and two 40mm guns with 3P can eliminate fast-boat swarm at close distance, when the enemy opens fire. To counter possible hit by ATGM or alike, frigate standard hull is good. If the threat is "clear and distinct" and ROE enables to sink them in far distance even before the enemy opens fire, (up to) two Wildcats will do something. In this case, actually the best asset to handle these targets is "a few Typhoons carrying dozens of Brimstone missiles".

T45 and/or T26 will need to "waste" precious CAMM missiles (in anti-surface mode) against these cheap and numerous assets.

cheap-ASM and/or suicide UAV (=cheap) in surprise
Against very cheap UAVs, 57mm/40mm 3P rounds are one of the best asset. Its more like AAW in WWII. So, air-burst and proximity-fuse rounds works well. Combined with modern FCS, its capability is very high.

It is not good to waste Aster-15/30 or even CAMM against these cheap assets.

Against cheap-ASM surprise attack, a few CAMM will work.

------
But, it also means, five T31 is enough. With five, I think one forward deployed to Persian Gulf, another sent to NATO standing escort group, 3rd-one at basic training around UK water, and 4th and 5th at maintenance. (I think even three must have been nice. One deployed to Persian Gulf, one at basic training around UK water, and the last one at maintenance)... Being cheap to buy, and what is more, cheap to operate, are good rationale for T31.

[Tempest414]

But, it also means, five T31 is enough. With five, I think one forward deployed to Persian Gulf, another sent to NATO standing escort group, 3rd-one at basic training around UK water, and 4th and 5th at maintenance. (I think even three must have been nice. One deployed to Persian Gulf, one at basic training around UK water, and the last one at maintenance)... Being cheap to buy, and what is more, cheap to operate, are good rationale for T31.

The way I see it type 31 will be deployed 1 in the Gulf , 2 in the Indo-Pacific and 2 in the Home Fleet

[ArmChairCivvy]

a pennant number with "P". Comparing T31 and PPA, calling T31 a "Multi-Purpose Global Patrol Sloop" with a pennant number of "K" has no problem. Eventually, even the world may follow. I think it is a class which includes, PPA, T31, LCS, and Japanese FFM. Actually, there are growing number of such ships in the world; this is simply because "Frigate/Destroyer" has grown similar to "cruiser" in the old days.

Wile you are quite right, think where the 'K' came from... USN does not have it, amongst the umpteen letter (combinations) that they use for hull classification.
- NATO navies did have - umpteen - Korvettes

point is that in a shooting war, there are a lot of non-frontline situations for which you need a second tier "fighty" ship and the B2 is not it

Quite; and as you say, cannot quickly -or at all - be made to be one such

stuck with T31 they decided to make the best of it and get the biggest ship they could get for their buck and hope they could upgrade it later to fulfill the original role of the T26 GP

Indeed... it is funny how someone a bit 'further' from the scene can better see the forest, from the trees

[ArmChairCivvy]

The requirement is unclear to me, but looks very different to the Singleton deployment of the past

Has anyone noticed that (from the days when the @TD forum was the place for these discussions) the mantra of the Standing Tasks - carved in stone - being the one dictating frigate numbers has... magically disappeared?

rationale is well thought. I think it is a specialist gray-zone-war frigate.

Quite.

------
But, it also means, five T31 is enough.

Indeed.

But you [in THIS quote not referring to anyone, as the quotes are out of sequence] are confused in your thinking. The RB2 haven't replaced the OPVs they are standing in for T23GPs as they go through refit. The T23GPs will be replaced by T31

Yes... and even then there will be a gap, with the GP frigates leaving service 'on the double'. Those pesky EU fishermen , intruding... what a perfect excuse to pay for the RB1s staying on, innit

the T31 will be built to recognised warship survivability standards, whereas the RB2 are built to commercial standards

Your point is valid, but overstated. RB1s were already 'better than' commercial std, and the RB2s were much improved.

the T31 as a replacement for the T23 GP’s but if the true T23 GP replacements are in fact the T32’s then the T31’s are really just OPV replacements which in itself has a solid rationale and an acceptable cost.

Now you are not minding the gap... how many years between the last T23GP gone and the first T32 coming in?
- and T23s were 'patrol frigates' whereas I have a hunch - does anyone here actually know - that the T32s will be more tuned to influencing the 'littoral' which does not stop at the shoreline, but can extend (up to) 100 km inland. Talking about LRGs, to be clear

[Poiuytrewq]

Now you are not minding the gap...

Are we not used to gaps by now?

IMO RN is just playing the long game to get what is required at a cost the Treasury will swallow. The T32’s are really required to escort the LSG’s as the T23GP’s decommission but the T31’s are in build now so the gap is coming regardless. It’s too politically punitive to alter the program so it’s mitigation for the foreseeable future until the T32’s hit the water.

This is the reason why I do not believe extra CAMM or anything more sophisticated than a very basic hull mounted sonar will be fitted to the T31’s regardless of the rights and wrongs. In doing so the T32 program would be jeopardised and I think RN will do virtually anything to avoided the cancellation of the T32 program.

The really interesting part is how the gap is mitigated and I suspect that involves another refit for the T23ASW’s as the T26 start to commission. If the Westminster, Northumberland and Richmond pushed their respective OSD dates back for 4 years then that should bridge the gap.

That would allow the steel to be cut on the first T32 in 2026 with the first vessel handed over to RN around 2031.

This schedule could be accelerated if Babcock could revert back to the original plan of building a T31 every 3.5 years rather than 5.5 years. Using the new build hall at Rosyth to full capacity and building two T31’s concurrently would make a massive difference.

[ArmChairCivvy]

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Now you are not minding the gap...

Are we not used to gaps by now?

Every time you fall in between the train and the platform, it will be hurting but I do agree with everything you say.

allow the steel to be cut on the first T32 in 2026 with the first vessel handed over to RN around 2031.

This schedule could be accelerated if Babcock could revert back to the original plan of building a T31 every 3.5 years rather than 5.5 years. Using the new build hall at Rosyth to full capacity and building two T31’s concurrently would make a massive difference.

The trades moving through two parallel builds will be cost-optimal at 37% concurrency
... by how much would that compress the schedule from hull2 to delivery of hull5?
NB The above assumes that 'trades' can be recruited/ contracted as and when needed

[tomuk]

This schedule could be accelerated if Babcock could revert back to the original plan of building a T31 every 3.5 years rather than 5.5 years. Using the new build hall at Rosyth to full capacity and building two T31’s concurrently would make a massive difference.

They will be building T31s concurrently the first ship starts now and the last will be delivered by end 2028. I make that about 1.5 years per ship. The last ship will of course be out of the build hall before then so T32 could start in 2026.

[Repulse]

etter to build a third CVF, or a specialised ASW Carrier. More of a Cavour than a LHA or LHD.

Cavour is a LHA under the name Light carrier as it can carry 4 LCVP and 400 troops and I would be happy with a Cavour type ship 230 x 40 meters capable of carrying the same type of air-wing and up to 800 troops the key is flexibility it could be used as a ASW carrier , light escort carrier or a LHA but the point is we will never build another strike carrier for 40 years or more but we could get a 3rd flat top

Cavour’s primary role is an aircraft carrier, it has been designed as such with all of the supporting systems to perform high end air operations. You are right it can be used as a LPH as a secondary role, as can the QEs.

There is no point having a LPH (or LHA) to shift a RM Cdo sized force (a couple of Companies maybe) as it’s not in the FCF design.

My view is that the design should be focused on either a Strike/Air defence or ASW role, as it needs to be tier one at it to be able to protect other units as needed (such as the MRSS or RoRos).

[Repulse]

specialist gray-zone-war frigate

Interesting thought. I can understand the need to counter fast boat swarms and small UAVs in the Littoral zone, and the fact that a 40mm/57mm gun is a good weapon to tackle these. However, firing of ASMs is far from grey zone, and if that happens then it’s war plain and simple.

I still don’t think there is really a clear requirement for this outside of the Gulf though currently?

Also, to meet the requirement why not just add a 57mm to a B2 River class with some LMM / Starstreak launchers (even handheld)? Sure it’s missing a Wildcat, but that could be operated from a RFA or from the shore, and partly tackled by a LMM armed UAV. Also, the fact that the T31 is so large it will be restricted in which Littoral zones it can operate in.

I know it sounds like I’m just arguing to up-arm the B2s, but my main point is to push for a clear understanding of the requirement and then secondly the justification for such an large/expensive solution that could be better deployed elsewhere.

[Poiuytrewq]

I make that about 1.5 years per ship.

How?

The first of class will not commission until mid 2027. If RN trails take 18 months that equates to 4.5 years in-build. Way too long for the least complex escort RN has built in the modern era.


Approximate build programmes on average:

The T23’s……4.5 years to commission

The T45’s……6 years to commission

The RB1’s……3 years to commission

The RB2’s……4 years to commission

It’s also worth considering that the Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt classes were commissioned in LESS than 3 years.

Why are the T31 taking 6 years if the escort gap needs to be bridged and the T32’s are needed asap to escort the LRG’s?

It has all the hallmarks of artificial slowing again, just like the T26’s.

[NickC]

FWIW, build rates/time to commission etc, re the Japanese all new ~5,500t Mogami frigate class, Mitsubishi won the competition against a Mitsui design, contract awarded Aug 2017, due to 'incident' at the MHI shipyard the second ship built at the Mitsui shipyard will be the first in class, it started its sea trials October, 4 years 2 months after contract placed.

BAE Systems Mk.45 mod.4 5-inch naval gun system ×1
Japan Steel Works 12.7mm Remote Weapon System ×2
Mk.41 VLS (fitted for but not with)
Raytheon SeaRAM ×1
MHI Type 17 anti-ship missiles ×8
Mitsubishi Electric OPY-2 multifunction Radar
Mitsubishi Electric OAX-3EO/IR sensors
Hitachi OQQ-11 anti-mine sonar
NEC OQQ-25 anti-submarine sonar (VDS/TASS)
UUV (OZZ-5 by MHI) for mine counter measures
USV by Japan Marine United (JMU) Defense Systems
Sea mines for offensive mine warfare

From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ea-trials/>

[Tempest414]

etter to build a third CVF, or a specialised ASW Carrier. More of a Cavour than a LHA or LHD.

Cavour is a LHA under the name Light carrier as it can carry 4 LCVP and 400 troops and I would be happy with a Cavour type ship 230 x 40 meters capable of carrying the same type of air-wing and up to 800 troops the key is flexibility it could be used as a ASW carrier , light escort carrier or a LHA but the point is we will never build another strike carrier for 40 years or more but we could get a 3rd flat top

Cavour’s primary role is an aircraft carrier, it has been designed as such with all of the supporting systems to perform high end air operations. You are right it can be used as a LPH as a secondary role, as can the QEs.

There is no point having a LPH (or LHA) to shift a RM Cdo sized force (a couple of Companies maybe) as it’s not in the FCF design.

My view is that the design should be focused on either a Strike/Air defence or ASW role, as it needs to be tier one at it to be able to protect other units as needed (such as the MRSS or RoRos).

So the America or Wasp class are not tire one and are no use in light carrier form and who says it has to carry RM why can't it carry a Battalion of Air Assault troops the clue is in the name. The US , Italians and Spanish will use there LHA/LHD's as both Assault and Light carriers and if we are to get a 3rd flat top it will need to be a Assault Carrier

[Tempest414]

I make that about 1.5 years per ship.

How?

The first of class will not commission until mid 2027. If RN trails take 18 months that equates to 4.5 years in-build. Way too long for the least complex escort RN has built in the modern era.


Approximate build programmes on average:

The T23’s……4.5 years to commission

The T45’s……6 years to commission

The RB1’s……3 years to commission

The RB2’s……4 years to commission

It’s also worth considering that the Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt classes were commissioned in LESS than 3 years.

Why are the T31 taking 6 years if the escort gap needs to be bridged and the T32’s are needed asap to escort the LRG’s?

It has all the hallmarks of artificial slowing again, just like the T26’s.

However Babcocks can have two full hulls in the build shed and two in the water at the same time unlike BAE plus the first T-31 should be in the water by 2024 if the navy want to commission it quicker they need to get on with the trials

[donald_of_tokyo]

Babcock Rosyth is the only hope for FSSS to build as early as possible in UK. I do not think "wasting" its build capacity on T32 is a good idea.

(H&W cannot do. No skill remaining, I'm afraid. It will mean, Navantia actually doing everything)

In place of T32, just speed up T26 build by adding 2-3 more hulls. There is a capacity, because BAES Clyde is intentionally slowly building T26. After the first 3 hulls, the learning curve will, in principle, make the build speed faster. But the "1.5-2 years drumbeat" requirement is there, and Clyde will see many redundant workers.

[Ron5]

This schedule could be accelerated if Babcock could revert back to the original plan of building a T31 every 3.5 years rather than 5.5 years. Using the new build hall at Rosyth to full capacity and building two T31’s concurrently would make a massive difference.

They will be building T31s concurrently the first ship starts now and the last will be delivered by end 2028. I make that about 1.5 years per ship. The last ship will of course be out of the build hall before then so T32 could start in 2026.

Is the hall big enough to build some FSS blocks?

[Repulse]

Babcock Rosyth is the only hope for FSSS to build as early as possible in UK. I do not think "wasting" its build capacity on T32 is a good idea.

(H&W cannot do. No skill remaining, I'm afraid. It will mean, Navantia actually doing everything)

In place of T32, just speed up T26 build by adding 2-3 more hulls. There is a capacity, because BAES Clyde is intentionally slowly building T26. After the first 3 hulls, the learning curve will, in principle, make the build speed faster. But the "1.5-2 years drumbeat" requirement is there, and Clyde will see many redundant workers.

I would tend to agree, the FSSS now has to be the priority above more “patrol frigates” (whatever they are designed to do ). The RN is as strong as it’s weakest link (and this now seems to be it).

With the FSSS, B1 River Replacements, MLSVs and MRSSs, plus future orders there is plenty for Babcock to take on as the non-complex warship shipyard of choice

[Repulse]

America or Wasp class are not tire one

Not as aircraft carriers no. The USMC are going some good trials work as light carriers, but they still miss a number of the key parts to performed high tempo and sustain air operations.

A quote I’ve seen from a USMC Maj Gen is “The problem is, we’re having to embark a fifth-gen MAGTF on a third-gen ship, and we have to fix that.”

[tomuk]

I would tend to agree, the FSSS now has to be the priority

So they can wait until 2026/2027 to start when capacity will be available at Rosyth.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The first of class will not commission until mid 2027.

Relative to the T31s, the French are building their FDIs at such a pace that 3 for exports can be fitted in.

From the naval-news link @seaspear provided it would seem that the Greeks are getting good value for their e3 bn, for 3 ships and 3 years of support:
" the 3 billion budget includes the ships, the weapon systems as well as the support of the ships for three years.

Regarding the schedule for the Hellenic Navy, the first two frigates will be delivered to the Hellenic Navy in 2025 and the third one in 2026. Grandjean said “this first export customer validates the decision of the French MoD to develop the FDI frigate”. At 4,500 tons, the FDI is smaller than the 6,000 tons FREMM but packs the same firepower and features a much better radar, the SeaFire by Thales.

Accoding to the French MoD, the Hellenic Navy frigates will be fitted with (among other systems):

32x Aster 30 B1 surface to air missiles
8x Exocet anti-ship missile MM40 B3c"
RAM as CIW is mentioned later, but that radar comparison was quite startling... so not a budget model then?
- surely FREMM AD version can compete?

[J. Tattersall]

Relative to the T31s, the French are building their FDIs at such a pace that 3 for exports can be fitted in.

From what I've read it's not true to say that these frigates will be fitted in, rather that they were production slots meant for the Marine Nationale which have been diverted to Greece. The French navy will thus have to wait till a future date for its FDIs and either run on older ships or suffer a capability gap, or both.

Perhaps Xav can enlighten us on this one?

[Repulse]

I would tend to agree, the FSSS now has to be the priority

So they can wait until 2026/2027 to start when capacity will be available at Rosyth.

Build can start earlier if I understand it. I’d be surprised given the status of the contract and perspective yards if they would built any quicker elsewhere. Is there a stop gap option? Obviously relying on the USN is one, but perhaps we could borrow a ship?