Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

If Westminster is in such poor condition as to make refit unviable what about next few ships in line for refit we could start to see a rapid fall in Type 23 numbers the RN will need to keep 8 Type 23 ASW going until they can be replaced by Type 26 but if things get to bad we might need to fit CAPTAS 4 to the last 2 type 31's as a stop gap

As for the RB2's more and more we need to start upgrading them with a 3D radar and 40mm or even a 57mm as they will need to fill in the the escort fleet for longer

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

I’ve always thought the Lifex made little sense. Old ships, worked hard - what’s the point.

Far better surely to spend that money upgrading the RB2s and or adding mk41 to the Type 31s

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 May 2023, 16:37 If Westminster is in such poor condition as to make refit unviable what about next few ships in line for refit we could start to see a rapid fall in Type 23 numbers the RN will need to keep 8 Type 23 ASW going until they can be replaced by Type 26 but if things get to bad we might need to fit CAPTAS 4 to the last 2 type 31's as a stop gap
Lets be honest this has all the hallmarks of a disaster waiting to happen as each hull is found to be beyond economical repair. Blowing the budget for multi-year refits to extend the OSD of knackered old Frigates by a couple of years is pointless unless keeping Devonport busy is the priority.

Can RN actually snatch victory from the jaws of defeat here?

Is this the opportunity to speed up the ridiculously slow T26 program as ASW Frigates are going to drop below the critical 8?

Can the money saved on refits be spent on Captas 2 or 4 for the T31’s?

RN doesn’t have a lot of options but the best one IMO is to let the hull numbers drop and spend the money on getting the new classes commissioned asap by adding extra hulls. How much could be saved? Enough for an extra T26 and/or T31? Even just speeding up the build schedule will save money as many of the yards overheads are fixed regardless of how long it takes to construct a vessel.
As for the RB2's more and more we need to start upgrading them with a 3D radar and 40mm or even a 57mm as they will need to fill in the the escort fleet for longer
If the RB2’s are dramatically upgraded, the temptation will be to use them for taskings were they are totally unsuitable. Adding a 40mm is an easy win but IMO any upgrades should be POD based to ensure in the medium to long term any available funding is spent on ensuring the T31’s are fully maximised when commissioned.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SD67 wrote: 30 May 2023, 18:34 I’ve always thought the Lifex made little sense. Old ships, worked hard - what’s the point.

Far better surely to spend that money upgrading the RB2s and or adding mk41 to the Type 31s
And also making the most of what is in the water.

If the T23’s drop below 10 and considering the T45’s availablity RN will have a lot of crew to spare.

Why not slot RN in with RFA and get both Albions, all three Bays and the Waves back at it?

Morale will be affected if everyone isn’t kept busy.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 30 May 2023, 15:47 Adding some more capabilities to the B2 is the right thing to do regardless.

I would however, move the crew to get the second LPD in place ahead of taking over RFA ships. By doing this a Bay class can go, which means that RFA crewing issues are alleviated and it’s better aligned to the future.
I hope you mean a Bay class can go into extended readiness, and not being sold.....

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SD67 wrote: 30 May 2023, 18:34 I’ve always thought the Lifex made little sense. Old ships, worked hard - what’s the point.

Far better surely to spend that money upgrading the RB2s and or adding mk41 to the Type 31s
The last T23 went into LIFEX back in 2020, so the RN did change their policy a couple of years back.
That was decision RN made with Monmouth & Montrose - early retirement rather than LIFEX.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
SD67

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 May 2023, 21:35 I hope you mean a Bay class can go into extended readiness, and not being sold.....
Nope, let’s sell one to pay for other things. We need clarity and clear direction, wasting funds differing is just making things worse.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 30 May 2023, 21:43 Nope, let’s sell one to pay for other things. We need clarity and clear direction, wasting funds differing is just making things worse.
Largs Bay was gifted to Australia 12 years ago for £65m.

How much “clarity and clear direction” are you going to buy for another £50m?
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
new guy

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 30 May 2023, 21:51
Repulse wrote: 30 May 2023, 21:43 Nope, let’s sell one to pay for other things. We need clarity and clear direction, wasting funds differing is just making things worse.
Largs Bay was gifted to Australia 12 years ago for £65m.

How much “clarity and clear direction” are you going to buy for another £50m?
well if we take the 50 million as a figure then all 5 RB2's could be fitted with a 3D radar and 40mm plus be given 2 or 3 Jackal UAV's in a POD each

As said with this fit they would be ready for other POD to

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 May 2023, 08:03 well if we take the 50 million as a figure then all 5 RB2's could be fitted with a 3D radar and 40mm plus be given 2 or 3 Jackal UAV's in a POD each
I have no objection apart the liquidation of a Bay to achieve it.

If the T23’s are decommissioned without the multi-year refits hundreds of millions of pounds will be saved.

I am no fan of gaps but in this instance accelerating the T26 and T31 programs is worth the short term pain of seeing other NATO assets fill in where RN should be operating.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
new guySD67

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 31 May 2023, 08:23
Tempest414 wrote: 31 May 2023, 08:03 well if we take the 50 million as a figure then all 5 RB2's could be fitted with a 3D radar and 40mm plus be given 2 or 3 Jackal UAV's in a POD each
I have no objection apart the liquidation of a Bay to achieve it.

If the T23’s are decommissioned without the multi-year refits hundreds of millions of pounds will be saved.

I am no fan of gaps but in this instance accelerating the T26 and T31 programs is worth the short term pain of seeing other NATO assets fill in where RN should be operating.
I also would never sell a Bay class at this time

But you asked how much clarity and clear direction you could buy for 50 million

Also speeding up type 26 could leave a gap between type 26 and 83 for me maybe the better option would be to build 3 more type 31 at the speed we are going now we then keep them or sell them

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Maybe also speeding up T83. because, if the MoD wants 12, +12 SSNR which are both roughly at the same time period it is going to be hell on earth to fund, with a total of +£50bn. If you think it's hard right now wait until that happens. 8 for both is much more realistic and would still be a substantial improvement on the current situation. But even that would be +£35bn. If 6 each even then it would still be +£25bn.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 May 2023, 10:49 Also speeding up type 26 could leave a gap between type 26 and 83 for me maybe the better option would be to build 3 more type 31 at the speed we are going now we then keep them or sell them
My main point is turning this mess into a plus scenario rather than a minus scenario. This has the potential to become a national security crisis and if the MoD isn’t currently concerned about this then they really should be waking up to the potential for a total breakdown of ASW capability between 2025 - 2031. That’s IF current planning is accurate and schedules are maintained as planned.

The solution is to allow BAE to build the T26’s as fast as possible. They are all contracted now so no need to procrastinate further. To avoid gaps build a 9th or even 10th hull before the T83.

At the same time accelerate the T31 programme and forget the T32 for the time being. Get hulls 1 and 2 in the water asap. Don’t try and improve them just build them in the shortest possible time. Make propulsion acoustic improvements for enhanced ASW to hulls 3,4 and 5 and add tails. If all goes well build a further batch of 5 hulls and then sell hulls 1 and 2 when RN escort numbers stabilise. The result will be 8 GP Frigates for RN all with tails and 32x Mk41 cells. Great result with the improvements funded by money saved on T23 refits.

By 2026 RN would receive the first T31 GP with tail and by 2028 RN could be receiving 2 Frigates with tails per year for the next 7-8 years.

Speeding up the builds will be cheaper, not more expensive. Adding more hulls at the end of the production run will fill the gap.

This is a big opportunity for RN to produce the escorts needed whilst staying within the current budget parameters.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
new guyScimitar54Jensy

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Agree.

2030 is looking like a "danger year". T23s will be dead but how many T26s will really be active? And Xi will be 77 and hungry for a place in history....

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

new guy wrote: 31 May 2023, 11:04 Maybe also speeding up T83. because, if the MoD wants 12, +12 SSNR which are both roughly at the same time period it is going to be hell on earth to fund, with a total of +£50bn. If you think it's hard right now wait until that happens. 8 for both is much more realistic and would still be a substantial improvement on the current situation. But even that would be +£35bn. If 6 each even then it would still be +£25bn.
IMHO Aukus is the key. Amortising the R&D over around 20 boats rather than 8 is a game changer, plus synchronising the production cycles, exchange of key personnel. Long term I'm confident, as above though I think there's a black hole around 2030 that needs dealing with

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Could a modified FSS design forfill MRSS? Existing design, gives work to H&W, existing fleet, could also do Supply ship roles, Large heli deck, 2x Merlin hangers + UAV hanger, no shortage of supplies on the mission, means LRG can have very long legs, e.c.t. It's even been shown with LPCV and 12 TEU on the front; PODS? I feel like this is a stupid question.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »



These users liked the author SKB for the post (total 3):
Poiuytrewqnew guydonald_of_tokyo

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 31 May 2023, 12:05
new guy wrote: 31 May 2023, 11:04 Maybe also speeding up T83. because, if the MoD wants 12, +12 SSNR which are both roughly at the same time period it is going to be hell on earth to fund, with a total of +£50bn. If you think it's hard right now wait until that happens. 8 for both is much more realistic and would still be a substantial improvement on the current situation. But even that would be +£35bn. If 6 each even then it would still be +£25bn.
IMHO Aukus is the key. Amortising the R&D over around 20 boats rather than 8 is a game changer, plus synchronising the production cycles, exchange of key personnel. Long term I'm confident, as above though I think there's a black hole around 2030 that needs dealing with
Not really. The cost of R&D and design, will be virtually the same for 1 boat as for 20. Amortization is just an accountants trick, it doesn't lower costs one iota. Or profile them any better.

The published research into the benefits of long ship production runs would indicate cost savings, through the impact of the learning curve, diminish rapidly after half a dozen or so ships. Most of the savings are from improved project management i.e. fewer key skills standing around waiting their turn.

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 »

2022 frigate force average 22.2% of their time at sea
2022 destroyer force average 16.5% of their time at sea
*Availability is not equal to days at sea - maybe at high readiness or alongside overseas.

T45
HMS Daring - 0
HMS Dauntless - 63
HMS Diamond - 114
HMS Dragon - 18
HMS Defender - 106
HMS Duncan - 62
T45 average = 60.5 days/year/hull
T23
HMS Argyll - 21
Iron Duke - 0
Kent - 127
Lancaster - 165
Montrose - 212
Northumberland - 191
Portland - 152
Richmond - 145
Somerset - 52
St Albans 0
Sutherland -0
Westminster - 90
T23 average = 96/year/hull (or 89days/year/hull, as it must be devided by 13, not 12, if we believe the RN announcement of "disbanding T23 actually increases overall sea going days")

Just for comparison.
YEAR 2015 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 // Average
T45 92 / 87.5 / 60 / 77 / 85.5 / 56.5 // 76.5
T23 90 / 72 / 77 / 84 / 75 / 103 // 83.5

In short, 2022 was, among the lowest for T45 (60.5), and a bit higher than average for T23 (89).

https://www.navylookout.com/an-analysis ... y-2015-20/
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Poiuytrewq

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I'm all for speeding up the T26's, seems like a no brainer, I would even trade the T31 mk 41 launchers to pay for it initially, not sure if it's worth speeding up the T31's .. just think if they had just got on with the T26 in the first place instead of penny pinching most of this could of been avoided...penny wise - "pound foolish" phrase comes to mind again 🤡
These users liked the author serge750 for the post:
Ron5

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

new guy wrote: 31 May 2023, 11:04 Maybe also speeding up T83. because, if the MoD wants 12, +12 SSNR
Where's the 12 Type 83 figure coming from? I'd be flabbergasted if we get more than six. Unfortunately I'd probably be happily surprised for even that many...
Poiuytrewq wrote: 31 May 2023, 11:43 The solution is to allow BAE to build the T26’s as fast as possible. They are all contracted now so no need to procrastinate further. To avoid gaps build a 9th or even 10th hull before the T83.

At the same time accelerate the T31 programme and forget the T32 for the time being. Get hulls 1 and 2 in the water asap. Don’t try and improve them just build them in the shortest possible time. Make propulsion acoustic improvements for enhanced ASW to hulls 3,4 and 5 and add tails. If all goes well build a further batch of 5 hulls and then sell hulls 1 and 2 when RN escort numbers stabilise. The result will be 8 GP Frigates for RN all with tails and 32x Mk41 cells. Great result with the improvements funded by money saved by on T23 refits.
We've got a fairly impossible situation in both short and long term escort building. Call it a 'Catch-Type-22':

- We build too slowly and the Royal Navy is going to be down to below any workable mass.

- We build too many ships now and by the 2040s UK naval shipbuilding will be almost entirely without work for a decade.

I think you've got the right solution for BAE on the Clyde. Maybe even consider selling off a couple early ships whilst they're still young and can getter a better price, to push work to 2040.

Babcock and Rosyth have some complications as there's - at least not planned or proposed - any big follow on work similar to Type 83. Even with a full order of five Type 32s, to follow Type 31, that barely takes us to the early 30s. Maybe 2-3 more to replace the early ships and you barely get to 2035. About 15 years with only the aspiration for some MRSS work.

Wish I could propose something more original... but I think we might have to go back to the idea of (don't say Black Swan) a smaller, cheap, flexible and plentiful class of ship that is focused on off-board systems. Use it for all the MHPC roles plus modular ASW to free up Type 26 for its high end capability.

Maybe in the meantime, sweat whatever assets across the Navy and RAF we have to replace some of the Type 23's.

- Keep the Batch 1 River going as long as possible

- Utilise the Batch 2's Merlin facilities to deliver more aerial ASW at range and in more places (AAR from A400M would be nice in the future)

- We have the Echo Class up for sale, maybe reconsider and see if their underwater surveillance role could be expanded

- Poseidons and Protectors are built much quicker than ships....

Of course, without more defence funding we're likely to see a very modest Royal Navy by 2040.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

People still have heads in the sand wishing for more when it simply isn’t going to happen.

Build schedules and future work is entirely possible within existing budgets. The problems with the type 23s was entirely avoidable, both these issues have/had the same solution namely keep building what is currently in production. It is far easier to flex in production equipment build that start from scratch.

You also are seeing why you do not run on equipment, it is a false economy and is never factored in to delaying or failing to only start programs you can realistically afford. After the 15-20 year mark sustainment costs go thru the roof. It’s the time frame when replacements should be coming in instead of major refits. Had they keep building type 23 and retiring/selling older ones some of these issues would not of happened.

Regardless if they’re considered perfect or whatever else the RN need to focus on the two in build escort and just keep building them no dalliance with the next exotic idea. If that means selling some earlier than historically was the case so be it, just keep building tweaking and modernising. If it doesn’t things get worst.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
Repulseserge750

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

SW1 wrote: 31 May 2023, 22:59 People still have heads in the sand wishing for more when it simply isn’t going to happen.
Hey we can all "wish". Batch 2 T26 has seen a significant move down the cost curve. A 150 million cost reduction x 8 ships could potentially one more T26 added to the end of the run. It's outside the current 10 year look ahead, so it should in theory be possible. Especially if the alternative is a gap prior to T83 meaning redundancies then retraining 3 years later.
SW1 wrote: 31 May 2023, 22:59
You also are seeing why you do not run on equipment, it is a false economy and is never factored in to delaying or failing to only start programs you can realistically afford. After the 15-20 year mark sustainment costs go thru the roof.
Agree and understood. But then why was it ever planned this way? Genuine question - why were T23 run on so long and why did we waste time on concepts like that RV Triton trimaran thing? Political indecision, cost of GW2?

Given where we are, are there any realistic remediations that can be put in place to prevent RN falling below a critical mass around 2030? I understand BAE are subbing out some T26 blocks to free up capacity on the Clyde. Accelerating PIP on T45 so that side of the fleet has good availability? Anything else?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the way forward is

BAE build 9 x Type 26 followed by 4 x OPV's followed by 8 x Type 83 followed by next gen ASW Frigate

Babcocks build 10 x Type 31 followed by 2 x LHD's followed 6 x OPV's followed by next gen GP frigate

H&W build 3 x SSS followed by 6 x Sea lift followed 4 x LPD's followed 5 x Tankers

Appledore build 40 x 25 by 6.5 meter fast boats for the FCF and Archer replacement ( speed 35+ knots range 800+Nm, 3D radar , RSW mounted 30mm plus 8 round Loitoring weapon launcher )

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

SD67 wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 09:30
SW1 wrote: 31 May 2023, 22:59 People still have heads in the sand wishing for more when it simply isn’t going to happen.
Hey we can all "wish". Batch 2 T26 has seen a significant move down the cost curve. A 150 million cost reduction x 8 ships could potentially one more T26 added to the end of the run. It's outside the current 10 year look ahead, so it should in theory be possible. Especially if the alternative is a gap prior to T83 meaning redundancies then retraining 3 years later.
SW1 wrote: 31 May 2023, 22:59
You also are seeing why you do not run on equipment, it is a false economy and is never factored in to delaying or failing to only start programs you can realistically afford. After the 15-20 year mark sustainment costs go thru the roof.
Agree and understood. But then why was it ever planned this way? Genuine question - why were T23 run on so long and why did we waste time on concepts like that RV Triton trimaran thing? Political indecision, cost of GW2?

Given where we are, are there any realistic remediations that can be put in place to prevent RN falling below a critical mass around 2030? I understand BAE are subbing out some T26 blocks to free up capacity on the Clyde. Accelerating PIP on T45 so that side of the fleet has good availability? Anything else?

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.

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.

Post Reply