Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 17:06
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 15:21 Again, as T26 build line is there, UK can add some anytime. T31 line can do anything other. MRSS, OPV, Point replacement, Wave replacement etc... No loss there?
Because whilst the build line is there, the money is not.

You could argue that the T32 budget can be repurposed for the late 2020s / early 2030s, so we can swap in 2-3 more T26s but what requirement will not be met. My other point is that the production line has been based on a 20 month drumbeat - slotting in even one more for delivery between 2029 and mid 2038 would mean a drumbeat of 16 months, and three more would be almost an annual drumbeat. Given the lack of investment into a Frigate Factory I can't see this happening - so the alternative is to extend the production window into the late 2030s delaying the T83.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 15:21 ...
My point is, T31 is exactly the ship to counter these threats.
...
These "new threats" will be there, at the same time with "Russia and China".

So, "T31 as-is" is needed, at the same time RN need "more T26 or alike".

What's wrong here :?:
A 57mm (plus potentially other defensive weapons) would allow a B2 River to tackle terrorist level UAVs. I would see this in the constabulary threat level (in hindsight my example wasn't great).

However, my point is different. If the budget was increased then I would have no problem with the T31. But in a time of very limited funds, but a clear and present danger from "superpowers" (either directly or indirectly) then we need to focus as much of our resources on platforms that can fight a hot war - this is both channeling funds into high end capabilities, but also having platforms (e.g. Rivers + MROSSs) to do the low level activities to ensure the high end ones are free when needed.

It's great that the T31 can effectively tackle a fast boat swarm or UAV threat, but what next. For example, the proliferation of submarines is increasing - Myanmar for example has just got it's second from China. Would you be happy to operate a T31 near Myanmar?

I do not see the need for a platform that is somehow in the middle, an expensive constabulary vessel, but a liability in a hot war. Also, I do not think the RN (or any navy) think they can start or participate in a conflict without the real possibility that the enemy will have access to at least some level of tier-one capabilities - you go in with your A-team, in the RN's case the CSG + SSNs.
The CDS’s view in questioning by the defence select committee is polar opposite to yours on type 31 and where they would send it are you saying he is wrong.

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: 18 Jan 2022, 11:29 So the US Constellation class will be fitted with 1 x 57mm , 32 VLS , 16 NSM , 22 RAM plus HGM's

With this in mind if type 31 was fitted with 24 Mk-41 and 8 NSM it would have 1 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 VLS , 8 NSM plus HGM's and for me be a good global patrol frigate

For me we need 10 x type 26 and 10 x type 31 as laid out above it is also important that type 83 is kept in check and we end up with 8 ship and I would say that they should end up 165 meters by 22 meters with 80 VLS given that type 45 could and should be fitted with 64 VLS

I also think we will see this with both BAE and Babcock building new escort halls they are gearing up to build more ships
Again. What are the RN planning on using T31/T32 for versus the USN using their new FFG(X)? Again bear in mind that they aleady have 90+ Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke (and soon likely to be over 100), so THEY can afford to have FFG(X) armed so lightly.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Am I right in thinking that currently the MoD has placed full contract orders for just the first three T26 (Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast) and that they have started placing orders for component items with long lead times for the other five ships. with full contract for these remaining five ships expected to be placed in 2022?

That would be good for this thread as we would finally have clarification for how much each additional T26 would cost. Currently we think it is £1bn per ship cost for a T26, £400k per ship cost for T31 "as is" and maybe £600k per ship cost for an upgraded T31.

At the momnt the 5*T32 have been announed but not confirmed or ordered. Once the remaining five T26 are ordered, then we would have 8*T26 dedicated ASW to replace the 8*T23 ASW, and then 5*T31 General Purpose to replace the 4*T23 GP. i.e. at that point we woul have replicated what we have had before but still very stretched in terms of escort numbers.

For those confused about missions the 5*T31 GP will fullfill, surely we just have to look at what missions the 4*T23 GP currently fullfil.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 18:14
Tempest414 wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 11:29 So the US Constellation class will be fitted with 1 x 57mm , 32 VLS , 16 NSM , 22 RAM plus HGM's

With this in mind if type 31 was fitted with 24 Mk-41 and 8 NSM it would have 1 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 VLS , 8 NSM plus HGM's and for me be a good global patrol frigate

For me we need 10 x type 26 and 10 x type 31 as laid out above it is also important that type 83 is kept in check and we end up with 8 ship and I would say that they should end up 165 meters by 22 meters with 80 VLS given that type 45 could and should be fitted with 64 VLS

I also think we will see this with both BAE and Babcock building new escort halls they are gearing up to build more ships
Again. What are the RN planning on using T31/T32 for versus the USN using their new FFG(X)? Again bear in mind that they aleady have 90+ Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke (and soon likely to be over 100), so THEY can afford to have FFG(X) armed so lightly.
the fact is that FFGX will replace the Flight 1 AB's and the Flight 111 AB's will replace the CG's we know the CG are being retired and we also know the flight 1 AB's are coming to the end as the first ships arrived in 1991 so the new FFGX will be picking up there tasking's

As for the type 31's they will be used all over the world and as so need to offer some form of offence and as said above type 31's with 32 VLS if grouped could pack a big punch over a large area say over 1000 miles in any direction from the ships

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 17:22 The CDS’s view in questioning by the defence select committee is polar opposite to yours on type 31 and where they would send it are you saying he is wrong.
In my opinion, based on my reading of geopolitics and view that the world is about to get a very dangerous place, yes.

BUT I accept that he may also be right, Russia could declare peace, China could recognise Taiwan as an independent state etc. They may be happy for the RN to sail globally and get involved in conflicts with their allies unchallenged.

I can also see that the new CDS is good at navigating politics. To say the T31 decision was wrong would not only go down badly at #10 & #11 Downing Street, but also would question his judgement as he was part of the decision process. I see his comments around enhancing the T31 capabilities as an admission that things need to change.

I’m still comfortable with the view I have and being potentially wrong - debate and different views (with respect) are fine. :D
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 4):
Scimitar54donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniacJensy
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Even if they are not Teir 1 escorts, surely the T31 can still play a meaningful role as part of the carrier group? Clearly, not as useful as the T45s or T23/26's, but being able to augment tthe core group with 2-3 T31 (if shit hits the fan) will be of some benefit, no? As GK to the CVF, picket ships etc?

I'm still convinced they'll be delivered with more than 12 CAMM, and at somepoint will be fitted with ASM's

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

The most important thing that the 5 x T31 will bring to the RN is “5 additional hulls in the Water” which with the addition of some possible and relatively inexpensive capability improvements will make them very useful indeed. Perhaps those who wish to cancel them would rather that the RN had fewer capable hulls and be able to operate in even fewer places!
If a parallel project to provide possible modular up-arming of them was put in place, then I would be happy to have another 10-15 ordered, with maybe another construction site as well (possibly Portsmouth) so short of hulls are we. You never know, the (up to 5) T32 may just turn out to be these refined (and up-armed) T31. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 19:54
SW1 wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 17:22 The CDS’s view in questioning by the defence select committee is polar opposite to yours on type 31 and where they would send it are you saying he is wrong.
In my opinion, based on my reading of geopolitics and view that the world is about to get a very dangerous place, yes.

BUT I accept that he may also be right, Russia could declare peace, China could recognise Taiwan as an independent state etc. They may be happy for the RN to sail globally and get involved in conflicts with their allies unchallenged.

I can also see that the new CDS is good at navigating politics. To say the T31 decision was wrong would not only go down badly at #10 & #11 Downing Street, but also would question his judgement as he was part of the decision process. I see his comments around enhancing the T31 capabilities as an admission that things need to change.

I’m still comfortable with the view I have and being potentially wrong - debate and different views (with respect) are fine. :D
Course it is,if everyone viewed the world the same there wouldn’t be much debate about anything.

I would however hold a very different view I actually see the platform selected for type 31 as the future direction of travel. It’s what type 45 and 26 should of been in my view. Technology development is rapidly doing away with specialist base platforms leaning to more capable independent modular systems that go on anything. You see it everywhere you look not just in defence. You want a gd sea keeping hull with lots of space and power that’s easy to support, and you invest and develop where the value added is the systems you integrate and the complex weapons.

The use of spiral development for both inservice and new builds should be how we proceed it’s not start again each time it’s incremental change and that reduces technical and program risk. Type 31 as it is, is often disparaged for not having this or that, well fine but none of the rest of the ships in the fleet have it either. When and if the RN decides it wants a land attack or anti ship missile the ships able to take it, but it’s their decision as it stand it can take care of itself.

You say the world is more dangerous I don’t think it is, it’s always been a dangerous place. We as a country spend a lot on defence but we attempt to do too much and spent it badly with many sacred cows. If we were really prepared to have an open mind and set ego aside on what we where trying to achieve and had a tight focus on where we are looking to achieve it we would do a lot better.

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: 18 Jan 2022, 19:54I’m still comfortable with the view I have and being potentially wrong - debate and different views (with respect) are fine. :D
Thanks, exactly I think so too.
Repulse wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 17:06 ... You could argue that the T32 budget can be repurposed for the late 2020s / early 2030s, so we can swap in 2-3 more T26s but what requirement will not be met. My other point is that the production line has been based on a 20 month drumbeat - slotting in even one more for delivery between 2029 and mid 2038 would mean a drumbeat of 16 months, and three more would be almost an annual drumbeat. Given the lack of investment into a Frigate Factory I can't see this happening - so the alternative is to extend the production window into the late 2030s delaying the T83.
Disagree. Babcock stood up their new production line from zero within 2-3 years. BAES increasing their production line by ~30% within a few years will be easy.
However, my point is different. If the budget was increased then I would have no problem with the T31. But in a time of very limited funds, but a clear and present danger from "superpowers" (either directly or indirectly) then we need to focus as much of our resources on platforms that can fight a hot war - this is both channeling funds into high end capabilities, but also having platforms (e.g. Rivers + MROSSs) to do the low level activities to ensure the high end ones are free when needed.
I think we are looking at the same thing with different PoV.

I think I am thinking the threat more severe and enduring than you do.

1: Russia and China is NOT a temporal threat. It is enduring threat, will be there for decades to come. Probably, worse in the next decade, and even worse in the next-next decade. As such, short term fixing is not a solution. When coupled with "lack of money", long term efficiency must be the top priority. Anything inefficient is my enemy. :D

And, two (nearly) 1st-tier escort build line, each with slow slow 1.5-2 years drumbeat is exactly what is inefficient.

2: UK shall/will NEVER confront Russia nor China alone. Then, what part of the game shall UK put priority?

1st: North Atlantic: UK's geology make this clear. Stronger UK (or NATO) contribution in this region will enable USA assets of Atlantic fleet to move to Pacific.

2nd: Persian Gulf. UK has significant political relation in the region, and not using it is a bad idea. To use it, UK needs "presence" there.

3rd: Countering China in east Asia. Surely NOT the main theater of UK. But, UK also has some good international relation there, and abandoning it is very bad idea (such gap will be filled by China). Again, UK needs "presence" there.

North Atlantic needs 1st-tier escorts. Regardless of CAPTAS4 CI equipped, T31 will never play a good game against Russian SSN and SSK. Only a little place for T31, even if significantly uparmed.

Persian Gulf and East Asia is a bit different. Considering Chinese growing sea-power, in ASW point of view, East Asia will be as dangerous as North Atlantic within a decade. Again not much place for T31, even if significantly uparmed, at least for war-time front-line tasks. But, for "presence" = peace-time tasks, T31/a-little-up-armed-T31 will be good.

I agree any increase in RN budget might not be large. As such, increasing T26 number, and then slightly increasing T31/32 and/or slightly up-arming T31 will be a solution. But, all of these must come only after, up-arming T45, T26, increasing P-8A, P-7A, improving the ammo stock, etc etc.

Thus, for me, "significantly up-arming T31/T32" cannot be a high priority. It will just make the British shipbuilding industry less efficient and bring less fighting power to RN. As the threat is there, and shall not disappear within a decade, UK must keep it efficient in long-term.

The other idea is, stop building expensive 1st-tier assets and move to T31-like assets in number. In that case, UK MUST cancel the 2nd-batch T26, demolish T83 program, so that T31-like assets can be built in really good number. This is another approach, I agree (although not yet convinced).

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

the biggest message that can be sent to Russia and China by the UK is defence going from 2% to 3% GPD

With the move to the Mk-41 system on Type 26 plus the new gun systems 127mm , 57mm , 40mm we need to double down and push on and for me we should be ordering 24 mk-41 cell for both type 26 and type 31 and 16 Mk-41 cells for type 45 and we should be buying NSM plus 140 Tomahawk V missiles this would allow

Type 45 = 32 x Aster 30 , 64 CAMM , 16 Tomahawk V , 8 x NSM
Type 26 = 48 CAMM , 16 ASROC , 8 Tomahawk V , 8 NSM
type 31 = 32 CAMM , 16 Tomahawk V , 8 NSM

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 07:06The other idea is, stop building expensive 1st-tier assets and move to T31-like assets in number. In that case, UK MUST cancel the 2nd-batch T26, demolish T83 program, so that T31-like assets can be built in really good number. This is another approach, I agree (although not yet convinced).
In 1990 the RN had a fleet of 51 destroyers and frigates, today in theory 18/19?, for ref the IJN current targeting a fleet of 47/54 including their Aegis destroyers.

So I repeat my earlier post to you "A fundamental basic that when it comes to war the numbers of ships are of critical importance and the way to achieve that is to keep size and cost to the practical minimum, the T26 is just too big and too expensive even if BAE could bring cost down ~£800 million/£1 billion each"

Would note even though the first three T26 cost a total of £4.7 billion for Initial Design/Demonstration Phase/Build, and in spite of lavishing all that treasure on them they are not tier 1 assets, yes for ASW but only FFBNW for anti-ship missiles and certainly not for AAW, if you compare to the T26 with only its CIWS Sea Ceptors whereas the Constellation class fitted CIWS RAMs, local area ESSMs and medium range SM-2s.

As said nothing wrong with the T31 hull compared to the T26, what T26 does bring with it is its quiet hull for ASW, but why oh why does it need to be a near max 10,000t ship twice the size of a T23 and the equivalent to a WWII heavy cruiser. Would note the T31 as currently kitted out is a Constabulary/Piracy OPV, but its hull is an order magnitude less expensive than the T26 reflecting the design expertise of OMT the design house of Maersk the largest world container shipping company. Not saying its perfect but at least its half the cost if not more than a T26 which would give the RN a chance to build up its numbers which must be RN #1 priority.

PS House of Commons Defence Committee “We’re going to need a bigger Navy” 7 December 2021 and the only way will be to be smart in bringing ship costs down.

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 »

NickC wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 11:45As said nothing wrong with the T31 hull compared to the T26, what T26 does bring with it is its quiet hull for ASW, but why oh why does it need to be a near max 10,000t ship twice the size of a T23 and the equivalent to a WWII heavy cruiser. Would note the T31 as currently kitted out is a Constabulary/Piracy OPV, but its hull is an order magnitude less expensive than the T26 reflecting the design expertise of OMT the design house of Maersk the largest world container shipping company. Not saying its perfect but at least its half the cost if not more than a T26 which would give the RN a chance to build up its numbers which must be RN #1 priority.
Uhmm. What I fear is, "a well-armed T31" will be easily sunk by Russian/Chinese SSN/SSK, as ASW is their weak point. In that case, they will have no chance to "utilize" its firepower = useless.

Basic tactics is to hit your enemy's weak point, to suppress their strong point, isn't it? Even if T31-uparmed is 1/2 the price of T26, it will be sunk by a single torpedo?

If the enemy is NOT Russia nor China, I agree T31 can do good things. So, I am not saying T31/32 and/or uparming them is useless. My point is, when we are talking about up-arming T31, why not also talk about uparming T26? When talking about increasing T31/32, why not increase T26, as well, especially if the main enemy to consider is Russia and China? They differ, T31 cannot replace T26 no matter how much number will be there.

Of course, if my assessment is wrong, RN must throw away T26 batch2 program NOW. But they are not doing so?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

NickC wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 11:45 Would note the T31 as currently kitted out is a Constabulary/Piracy OPV, but its hull is an order magnitude less expensive than the T26

... Not saying its perfect but at least its half the cost if not more than a T26
These two things are not the same
These users liked the author Defiance for the post:
Repulse

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 23:11 I would however hold a very different view I actually see the platform selected for type 31 as the future direction of travel. It’s what type 45 and 26 should of been in my view. Technology development is rapidly doing away with specialist base platforms leaning to more capable independent modular systems that go on anything. You see it everywhere you look not just in defence. You want a gd sea keeping hull with lots of space and power that’s easy to support, and you invest and develop where the value added is the systems you integrate and the complex weapons.

The use of spiral development for both inservice and new builds should be how we proceed it’s not start again each time it’s incremental change and that reduces technical and program risk. Type 31 as it is, is often disparaged for not having this or that, well fine but none of the rest of the ships in the fleet have it either. When and if the RN decides it wants a land attack or anti ship missile the ships able to take it, but it’s their decision as it stand it can take care of itself.
Whilst, there are good aspects to the T31 such as factory building and a "minimum viable product and evolve" approach to deliver, I do not see it as the great revolution as some do.

The key reasons are as follows:
- The T26 could have been even more successful, and significantly cheaper, if the government had not differed about ordering, preventing a long term view on investment.
- To build a tier-one ASW ship requires that considered when designing and building the platform - the hull shape and quietening are key, and will remain so. To build a tier-one AAW ship requires again certain design characteristics of the hull to allow a relatively heavy radar to be positioned high up on the platform, and space for multiple VLS - this again will remain the case. There is no doubt that even though the IH is a AAW frigate it is less capable than the T45.
- The T83 could be the real game changer if it is allowed the same "factory" and "MVP" approach, but is built at scale (12+ hulls) and the platform is built with AAW and ASW in mind. The T31 will always be tier-two.
SW1 wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 23:11 You say the world is more dangerous I don’t think it is, it’s always been a dangerous place. We as a country spend a lot on defence but we attempt to do too much and spent it badly with many sacred cows. If we were really prepared to have an open mind and set ego aside on what we where trying to achieve and had a tight focus on where we are looking to achieve it we would do a lot better.
I completely agree - it's tough choices in a very finite budget. People talk about the T31 as though it is guaranteed to have the bells and whistles discussed her, but non of it is funded. The most likely outcome remains a light (paper) frigate with guns, a helicopter and 12 CAMM. I see it wasting funds to meet a requirement that is not a priority and could be better used elsewhere (by either scrapping it, or fitting it out properly and cutting T32 numbers).
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

NickC wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 11:45 the T26 is just too big and too expensive even if BAE could bring cost down ~£800 million/£1 billion each"
Order 20 T26s and jointly invest with BAE in a T26 frigate factory and the unit cost will come down significantly. For me that's the difference and we shouldn't be compromising numbers and capabilities because HMG is unwilling to commit long term.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 07:06 Babcock stood up their new production line from zero within 2-3 years. BAES increasing their production line by ~30% within a few years will be easy.
I'm not convinced; to really increase production BAE needs as frigate factory, there are too many "choke points" in the production line such as a large percentage of the build being done outside. To get a frigate factory production would need to stop 1-2 years.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 07:06 I think we are looking at the same thing with different PoV.

I think I am thinking the threat more severe and enduring than you do.

1: Russia and China is NOT a temporal threat. It is enduring threat, will be there for decades to come. Probably, worse in the next decade, and even worse in the next-next decade. As such, short term fixing is not a solution. When coupled with "lack of money", long term efficiency must be the top priority. Anything inefficient is my enemy.

And, two (nearly) 1st-tier escort build line, each with slow slow 1.5-2 years drumbeat is exactly what is inefficient.
I agree with this - it is a long term struggle that will get harder. The RN needs to get itself ready, removing waste and inefficiency - though the key part of this is the attitude of HMG. Short term views is the real driver of this. The RN's first choice was more T26s over T31s. If the government had taken this advice and given BAE a long term contract for 13 (or more) T26s and had supported investment in tooling and skills, the RN would be in a better place than now. We would have had a drumbeat of 1 per year no problem - even then in my dreams of dreams I'd like a second yard, but will settle for one efficient one.

Also, even if the T31 was the first choice, Babcock's ability to produce the quality ships on-time and to budget is far from proven, yet some seem to take it as given.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 07:06 2: UK shall/will NEVER confront Russia nor China alone. Then, what part of the game shall UK put priority?
North Atlantic without hesitation. In this the UK needs to become an equal to the USN, and maybe with the USA's shift to the east even become the lead.

Coupled with this the UK should have the ability to deploy globally a task group that can defend it's interests, but if needed take the fight as part of a coalition to either Russia or China (or their proxies). To support this the UK, as a P5 UN member, should support globally constabulary duties and build relationships with other nations, but at a low level. My real view on the Gulf is that as a nation we should be focusing on removing our dependence on Gulf Oil & Gas rather than trying to police it.
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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

If the T-31 remains as it appears to be configured and undertakes the role of being a forward presence vessel replacing the B2 Rivers, I strongly believe it has been a waste of time and resources. If the B2s can continue in the roles and locations that have been chosen why do we need the T-31? Any other role that would most likely put the T-31 at greater risk is one the vessel is not equipped to meet. The Royal Navy simply needs more resources if it is to contribute at a global level with any measure of deterrence which is directly linked to the capabilities of the vessels that sail under the White Ensign.

Moving forward in return for extra resources, the MoD and Government must allow the Royal Navy to establish closer links with industry and enable the setting up of "Drumbeat" production lines for both Escorts and Submarines. If not the service will continue to shrink in size and capability. As has been pointed out it will already be difficult to reverse the services downsizing, but this is essential if the United Kingdom is to once again become a global naval power let alone remain one.

Looking again at the T-31, with this class we do have the opportunity to retain an escort fleet of thirteen vessels and even improve their capability if a joined up approach is taken along with a long term view. Key to this would be the installation of at least two Mk41s, something that would not be expensive to do. It is what goes into this VLS that would be of greater expense.

At a minimum all Royal Navy Escorts need to have a layered defence against threats from the Air, Surface and underwater, both passive and active. They also need to be able to effectively control the area around them and be able to threaten and/or prosecute any hostile forces. At present our Escorts are relatively effective at self defence but seriously lack any deterrence value except the fact that sinking one will likely cause a conflict and we will be bringing allies who can actively engage the aggressor, unlike the Royal Navy. This sir not how the Royal Navy should have to operate. It is a good thing to have and be able to operate with allies, it is a bad thing to depend on them.

If the Royal Navy is to take a decade long absence from combat operations, like the Army is planning to do, then at least the MoD should be transparent about it. It should not conduct operation where its ships are at risk, and instead retain its deployments where its presence is still of use but with little risk. Let me be straight the Royal Navy, with the exception of its few SSNs is taking such a break unless it regains its offensive capabilities and the F-35s from the Carriers do not achieve this either. We say that the T-31 will be a good gunboat to deter hostile Boghammers from threatening allies merchant shipping. Well yes until the Boghammers are supported by a FAC or Corvette with one or more rapid fire 76mm let alone AShMs. The Gulf is seen as the ideal location for the T-31s yet the most likely hostile country also has SSKs and mini SSKs, against which it has not means of detection let alone engaging.

Rant over for now, I need to think before I suggest what should be done as against what will be.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 13:36Basic tactics is to hit your enemy's weak point, to suppress their strong point, isn't it? Even if T31-uparmed is 1/2 the price of T26, it will be sunk by a single torpedo?
An uparmed T31 would be no more liable to be sunk by torpedo than a T45. A T26 is just as liable to sunk by a flight fighters standing off at 30 km out of the range of Sea Ceptor and firing anti-ship missiles. We need numbers, a squadron with appropriate mix, of ASW and AAW ships with AShMs.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 14:47
SW1 wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 23:11 I would however hold a very different view I actually see the platform selected for type 31 as the future direction of travel. It’s what type 45 and 26 should of been in my view. Technology development is rapidly doing away with specialist base platforms leaning to more capable independent modular systems that go on anything. You see it everywhere you look not just in defence. You want a gd sea keeping hull with lots of space and power that’s easy to support, and you invest and develop where the value added is the systems you integrate and the complex weapons.

The use of spiral development for both inservice and new builds should be how we proceed it’s not start again each time it’s incremental change and that reduces technical and program risk. Type 31 as it is, is often disparaged for not having this or that, well fine but none of the rest of the ships in the fleet have it either. When and if the RN decides it wants a land attack or anti ship missile the ships able to take it, but it’s their decision as it stand it can take care of itself.
Whilst, there are good aspects to the T31 such as factory building and a "minimum viable product and evolve" approach to deliver, I do not see it as the great revolution as some do.

The key reasons are as follows:
- The T26 could have been even more successful, and significantly cheaper, if the government had not differed about ordering, preventing a long term view on investment.
- To build a tier-one ASW ship requires that considered when designing and building the platform - the hull shape and quietening are key, and will remain so. To build a tier-one AAW ship requires again certain design characteristics of the hull to allow a relatively heavy radar to be positioned high up on the platform, and space for multiple VLS - this again will remain the case. There is no doubt that even though the IH is a AAW frigate it is less capable than the T45.
- The T83 could be the real game changer if it is allowed the same "factory" and "MVP" approach, but is built at scale (12+ hulls) and the platform is built with AAW and ASW in mind. The T31 will always be tier-two.
SW1 wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 23:11 You say the world is more dangerous I don’t think it is, it’s always been a dangerous place. We as a country spend a lot on defence but we attempt to do too much and spent it badly with many sacred cows. If we were really prepared to have an open mind and set ego aside on what we where trying to achieve and had a tight focus on where we are looking to achieve it we would do a lot better.
I completely agree - it's tough choices in a very finite budget. People talk about the T31 as though it is guaranteed to have the bells and whistles discussed her, but non of it is funded. The most likely outcome remains a light (paper) frigate with guns, a helicopter and 12 CAMM. I see it wasting funds to meet a requirement that is not a priority and could be better used elsewhere (by either scrapping it, or fitting it out properly and cutting T32 numbers).
It’s not evolution being a revolution more going back to the basics of product development and fielding that often seems forgotten.

It’s not a frigate factory that reduces costs per say, at the end of the day it’s a shed. Its the build process and fabrication and simplifying that process by taking it into account in the design of the ship. It’s also not only the initial build but consideration for upgrade and thru life support for LRU replacement and the like.

As I mentioned its the systems and development of technology that is changin the dynamic. The sensor does not need to be the shooter but the systems that allow that to happen and the management system is more important than the basic platform you put it in. It will become more so as ranges of modern weapons run to the 100s of mile range.

For ASW it’s having a crew and command team trained to conduct the discipline that’s the most difficult bit of it all. The sonars and the algorithms that support it are were the R&D invest is and what people are buying into and where multi statics are going. It’s indicative that Australian and Canada have both ripped the CMS and radars out of their variants of type 26 but not the sonars.

It probably every more so the case in aaw. They haven’t yet decided to train a aaw and asw crew. They have keep the command staff separate. I don’t know who’s aaw ship is better than who’s but the Dane’s have updated there ships for ballistic missile defence and declared it to NATOs force as well as taking part in the formidable shield exercises with a plan for integration of the sm6 missile into there cms. So I will assume it’s capable against the Russia threat. It’s also true that no matter how good you claim the ship to be it’s pretty pointless if it spends most of its time in dry dock.

Those tough choices and hard looks apply to a much greater range of things than just type 31 but that’s another topic.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Tempest414

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Repulse wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 15:07
I'm not convinced; to really increase production BAE needs as frigate factory, there are too many "choke points" in the production line such as a large percentage of the build being done outside. To get a frigate factory production would need to stop 1-2 years.
Production of T26 wouldn't need to stop. BAE have already demolished and cleared the Yarrows part of Scotstoun where HMS Daring was launched from. You could start construction tomorrow of the 'Frigate Factory' without affecting what's going on at Govan or the future fitting out at Scotstoun. There is a site approx. 150m x 450m ready and waiting.

https://goo.gl/maps/pbR3UX23s59oqLfx9
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoJensy

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 17:14 I don’t know who’s aaw ship is better than who’s but the Dane’s have updated there ships for ballistic missile defence and declared it to NATOs force as well as taking part in the formidable shield exercises with a plan for integration of the sm6 missile into there cms. So I will assume it’s capable against the Russia threat. It’s also true that no matter how good you claim the ship to be it’s pretty pointless if it spends most of its time in dry dock.
I think your getting ahead of yourself there. The Danes only ordered SM2 in 2019 the work to fit integrate and test them is ongoing. They will be commissioned in 2023. They are then looking to move from ESSM to ESSM Block II in which they have already contributed to the development programme. On SM6 they have to conclude their study on how to integrate SM6 before they even order them. One option, albeit extreme, they were considering was to replace the Thales Radar(s) and Terma CMS and replace with AEGIS and SPY-7.

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 »

NickC wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 16:57
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 13:36Basic tactics is to hit your enemy's weak point, to suppress their strong point, isn't it? Even if T31-uparmed is 1/2 the price of T26, it will be sunk by a single torpedo?
An uparmed T31 would be no more liable to be sunk by torpedo than a T45. A T26 is just as liable to sunk by a flight fighters standing off at 30 km out of the range of Sea Ceptor and firing anti-ship missiles. We need numbers, a squadron with appropriate mix, of ASW and AAW ships with AShMs.
No objection. Thus we need "a squadron with appropriate mix", not only increasing GP frigates. AAW specialist (T45) needs upgrade, ASW+MP frigate (T26) need up-arming and increasing the number, and GP frigate (T31/32) needs well balanced up-arming and increase.

I am not anti-T31/32. I am just no convinced with SUPER-up-arming T31/32.

My point is, it is NOT ONLY about T31/32. As UK has a very good ASW+MP frigate production line on-going, anything hi-end of "GP frigate" line MUST consider a mix with T26.

I home my point is getting cleaerer...

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, 00:29
NickC wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 16:57
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 13:36Basic tactics is to hit your enemy's weak point, to suppress their strong point, isn't it? Even if T31-uparmed is 1/2 the price of T26, it will be sunk by a single torpedo?
An uparmed T31 would be no more liable to be sunk by torpedo than a T45. A T26 is just as liable to sunk by a flight fighters standing off at 30 km out of the range of Sea Ceptor and firing anti-ship missiles. We need numbers, a squadron with appropriate mix, of ASW and AAW ships with AShMs.
No objection. Thus we need "a squadron with appropriate mix", not only increasing GP frigates. AAW specialist (T45) needs upgrade, ASW+MP frigate (T26) need up-arming and increasing the number, and GP frigate (T31/32) needs well balanced up-arming and increase.

I am not anti-T31/32. I am just no convinced with SUPER-up-arming T31/32.

My point is, it is NOT ONLY about T31/32. As UK has a very good ASW+MP frigate production line on-going, anything hi-end of "GP frigate" line MUST consider a mix with T26.

I home my point is getting cleaerer...
Yes but Donald that Mix is already established 8x T26 and 5x T31. By the time the T26s are finished the T45 will need replacing despite their leisurely youth there just isn't the budget to dramatically speed up T26 production, there is no point in speeding up to produce 1 or 2 more.

10x T31/32 with added extras >> 12x CAMM, a HMS and 8xNSM is considerably more affordable.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 16:45 If the T-31 remains as it appears to be configured and undertakes the role of being a forward presence vessel replacing the B2 Rivers, I strongly believe it has been a waste of time and resources. If the B2s can continue in the roles and locations that have been chosen why do we need the T-31? Any other role that would most likely put the T-31 at greater risk is one the vessel is not equipped to meet.
I think it all depends on "what kind of tasks can be carried out by up-armed River B2s". RN does not have dozens of River B2s, only five. And, in the current plan, it looks like 2 (or 3) of them will replace River B1s in ~2028, and 2 (or 3) are happily working very well at Falkland and Caribbean (and may be Gib). If so, there is little room for up-arming River B2.

In other words, any discussion on "up-arming River B2 to replace the T31 (with currently planned level of armament)" is virtually a discussion of how to build a new "heavily-armed OPV = River B3". Looking at the River OPV thread, I think the point is to have a ~110m long hull with a helicopter hanger. No bad, but in this case, the requirement is very much similar to those written in T31RFI, which turned out to be the T31 as we see.

So, for me, RN answer to such requirement is the T31 as is. If we rip-off CAMM and SeaCeptor software system, with simpler CMS, the unit cost will be £200M or so, thanks to already existing T31 production line (learning curve). So, for me, "River B3" could be "a down-armed T31 subclass".
... Looking again at the T-31, with this class we do have the opportunity to retain an escort fleet of thirteen vessels and even improve their capability if a joined up approach is taken along with a long term view. Key to this would be the installation of at least two Mk41s, something that would not be expensive to do. It is what goes into this VLS that would be of greater expense.
For this level of modest up-arming T31, I have no big objection. Just that I have other request like, 3 more P-8, 6-12 SkyGuadian UAVs with ASW option, 6-9 sets of USV-based-ASW, and adding punch on T26 Mk41 VLS. They are, at least similarly (and for me even more) important and urgent than "modest up-arming of T31".
...We say that the T-31 will be a good gunboat to deter hostile Boghammers from threatening allies merchant shipping. Well yes until the Boghammers are supported by a FAC or Corvette with one or more rapid fire 76mm let alone AShMs. The Gulf is seen as the ideal location for the T-31s yet the most likely hostile country also has SSKs and mini SSKs, against which it has not means of detection let alone engaging.
Very good point.

Persian Gulf operation is inherently international allied operation. ASW can be done by air cover, corvette and FAC can be handle by air forces (use the best asset to suppress your enemy's weak point). T31 is designed to handle fast boat harassment. Actually, it is better equipped than T23/26/45 to do the task. Thus, T31 "as is" has a good place to live. As low operation cost and longer sea-going days are one of the most important capability in these tasks, T31 as simply armed as is, has a good rationale.

But, this is only the case with Persian Gulf. So, it justifies only 3 of the 5 T31s.

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_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, 01:56Yes but Donald that Mix is already established 8x T26 and 5x T31. By the time the T26s are finished the T45 will need replacing despite their leisurely youth there just isn't the budget to dramatically speed up T26 production, there is no point in speeding up to produce 1 or 2 more.
Sorry not clear for me.

If there is £2-4Bn money, why not share that money to add 1 or 2 more T26 (which is easy I think), AND a few more T32/up-arming T31? If additional 1st-tier level fighting power is needed, surely this shall be one option?
10x T31/32 with added extras >> 12x CAMM, a HMS and 8xNSM is considerably more affordable.
If we are talking about this level of modest up-arming, I have no big issue.

Say, prepare £2Bn of money,
Option-1: build 5 T32 as T31-batch2 (only modest upgrade to avoid design/initial cost) with 80% of the money, and up-arm 5 T31 modestly with remaining £400M is not a bad solution, I agree.

Option-2: But, if north Atlantic is really really important, let's use 80% of the £2Bn to add 2 more T26, degrade T32 to be three MCM Logistic support vessel using used-PSV (£200M) and use the remaining £200M to modestly up-arm 2 (or 3) of the 5 T31s (my proposal).

Not saying Option-2 is "much much better" than Option-1, but surely worth considering? For example, if really North Atlantic is the main aim, I think Option-2 is better. T31/32 of Option-1 may not survive well in North Atlantic, I think.

Modestly-armed T31 will be good to be used as a member of NATO fleet, or part (not the core) of the UK CSG. But, if we look at US Constellation class, French FREMM, Italian FREMM, Canadian and Australian T26, it is clear that T26 is what is needed there, if to be used against Russia/China.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply