Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: is a twin Chinook capable flightdeck actually required with the LRG concept? If not would it actually make more sense to fit the hanger to the LPD’s?
The 'g' config can self-deploy from a great distance, so having just two Wildcats - from an escort's hangar, but alternating as to which helo pad they are on - to have one at readiness at all times... could be a way to approach this? (Chinook, as for G config)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes the two LSG can come together but that means more raids can be carried out in the same area/theatre, not a larger landing, at least that is how I am reading things. Until a contract is let to marinize the RAF's Chinooks including those on order, it would be foolhardy to deploy then onboard any vessels for any length of time. Maybe for a specific mission where the range of the Merlin will not suffice, but the latter is gong to be the workhorse of the LSG, backed up by Wildcats. One question is, are the Wildcats going to get some sort of upgrade in the future to make them more effective at supporting RMs in land? A CSG will not always be in the neighbourhood, so having some integral airborne fire support would probably be useful, both to escort and protect the transports if required, as well as any troops on the ground if things get hairy. Any major ground operations, of greater strength will become the preview of the Army, whether they be transported in one of the LPDs or Points.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:…could be a way to approach this?
Lots of options here.

The first thing to consider is whether the Apache is part of the plan. What could be better for a FCF raiding force than having couple of Apaches providing support. Would any available money be better spent marinising a modest number of Apache rather than upgrading Wildcat further?

A modest group of 1x modified LPD, 1x Wave and 2x T31’s could embark 2x Apache, 3x Merlin and 2x Wildcats. Very capable.

Clearly the well dock is more than sufficient for a large number of raiding craft and a generous number of XLUUV, UUV or USV. Again very capable.

Adding a hanger to the LPD’s could be the key to unlocking the whole FCF concept.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

All your highlighting is the strategic planning failure of placing all your aviation assets on solely 2 ships which can only be in a single location at any time. But too late now they paid there money they made there choice.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:All your highlighting is the strategic planning failure of placing all your aviation assets on solely 2 ships which can only be in a single location at any time. But too late now they paid there money they made there choice.
Possibly but if the £50mn was used to convert a civilian ship or as Poiuytrewq suggests adding hangars to the Albions then that would be better use of money IMO than trying to enhance a Bay (we have two of them already called HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark).
”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

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: One question is, are the Wildcats going to get some sort of upgrade in the future to make them more effective at supporting RMs in land?
That is the old LAH concept that went as far as 4 from the Army and 4 from the Navy order being allocated, mainly for the Marines. But the concept then (quietly) disappeared.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Would any available money be better spent marinising a modest number of Apache rather than upgrading Wildcat further?
A good question
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Poiuytrewq wrote:
Would any available money be better spent marinising a modest number of Apache rather than upgrading Wildcat further?


A good question
No amount of marinizing could convert Apache to be an adequate small ships helo.

The only RN Wildcat upgrade I have heard, is adding a datalink. Are there more in the pipeline? Aux fuel tanks would be nice.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

the front two u see here
https://www.naval-technology.com/wp-con ... alView.jpg
are 'small ship Apaches' except that
1. they do not look like Apaches... the foot print matches, though
2. the ship is not small (conversions, rather than escorts, in the meanwhile)
and 3. the concept (by Prevail) has grown to 230m in length, adding space to carry around 3,600m3of fuel

So in the early 2030s, collapsing the LPDs and the Waves into a single class.... get :D 3, instead of 2+2?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The first thing to consider is whether the Apache is part of the plan. What could be better for a FCF raiding force than having couple of Apaches providing support. Would any available money be better spent marinising a modest number of Apache rather than upgrading Wildcat further?
When I was last at Wattisham in 2019 there was a lot of talk about how much better the armies new E's would be when it comes to going sea they had identified a number of areas for improvement when operating the WAH-64's from Ocean and these were being built in to the E's

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

We have to remember for the FCF we are going to be talking "Raiding", not assaults. Ideally the troops would want to get ashore all quiet like, hit the target and then get the hell out of dodge. Having airborne fore support would be useful, so having our FAA Wildcats evolve into a platform similar to the SH-60 "Romeos" would not be a bad thing.

With the ground component of LSG (South) being stood up next year I am getting worried that we are trying to run before we can walk. Whilst the Albions and Bays can act as stand ins for the planned MRSS, that are not ideal and it appears that neither are to be modified to make their capabilities more akin to the latter.

The FCF is a great idea and one the Royal Marines were born for. But like so many bright ideas that a being banded around these days within the MoD, it is going to take serious investment to make it a reality, and no half baked measures like what we see far too often. The MRSS need to be built at least at the same time as the FSS, definitely not after. What will actually be the make up of the LSG, does anybody know? Will each contain one, two or more MRSS, their capacity will play a role in this? Are they going to be RFAs of under Royal Navy management? Will the new "Medium", helicopter have a part to play in the groups? All these questions and many more are out there.

What I have seen of the New Royal Marine organisation and tactics is very encouraging, we just need to be able to house them comfortably afloat as well as having effective means to get them to and from the target.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:
What I have seen of the New Royal Marine organisation and tactics is very encouraging, we just need to be able to house them comfortably afloat
Escorts will definitely have to play a role (what fraction of the 200 to be berthed in this way?) An escort is needed anyway; the folks for the helo can't be left behind, so it will be the ASW team then No more than 20, and - oops - not all escorts will have such teams, to begin with
- RB2s may come to show their worth
- but then (with such an allocation for the newer batch; 2 EoS, for one on real station, rather than just on the right half of the globe) RB1s will have to soldier on for much longer than planned
Lord Jim wrote: The MRSS need to be built at least at the same time as the FSS, definitely not after.
When again was the 30-yr building plan due to be published? All indications (and there have not been many) so far have been that the build and the LPDs' retirement will be closely matched...
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: RB1s will have to soldier on for much longer than planned
True, but they are also the easiest and cheapest ships to replace, my vote would be to spend £100mn to kick off the MLSV program with an initial batch of three - basic radar, 20mm and space for a boarding team job done…
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:With the ground component of LSG (South) being stood up next year I am getting worried that we are trying to run before we can walk. Whilst the Albions and Bays can act as stand ins for the planned MRSS, that are not ideal and it appears that neither are to be modified to make their capabilities more akin to the latter.
And this is why I keep coming back to LRG South needing to be made up of

1 x Bay , 1 x escort , Argus and a Tanker

this would allow a re-enforced company of RM landing craft of different types plus up to 4 Merlin's and 6 Wildcats with the ability of the group to cover the Indo-Pacific

With LRG North being made up of 1 x LPD , 1 x Bay , 1 x escort and being closer to home it will have the support of the Dutch LPD's or a Carrier

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

What's all this LRG shit doing here, go away :lol: :lol:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: all this LRG shit
Which 'ship' will deliver "it" without any kind of escort :?:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote: all this LRG shit
Which 'ship' will deliver "it" without any kind of escort :?:
So you lot are discussing LRG escorts? Could have fooled me :D

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SD67 wrote:This is interesting, not quite a frigate factory but
still a step in the right direction
This illustrates the proposal very nicely.


User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 504
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Halidon »

Expanding the halls but keeping the slipway? Or are they replacing that with a dock/lift?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7177
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

It's only a planning application....

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Halidon wrote:Expanding the halls but keeping the slipway? Or are they replacing that with a dock/lift?
Is the slipway still there? I doubt if it would be ever used again.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by bobp »

Ron5 wrote:Is the slipway still there? I doubt if it would be ever used again.
Sure is still there. But has not been used lately and will not be needed for T26.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

The slipway was last used for HMS Duncan and is currently being used as an extra steel storage area. The older slipways have portacabins on them. I believe the actual 'slips' were sent to Cammell Laird to launch RRS Sir David Attenborough.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

tomuk wrote: sent to Cammell Laird to launch RRS Sir David Attenborough
Small, but tangible proof of UK shipbuilding becoming an 'ecosystem' rather than just insular companies, in which type of environment losing one contract kills the whole company off
- cranes to Belfast, and all that
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote:The slipway was last used for HMS Duncan and is currently being used as an extra steel storage area. The older slipways have portacabins on them. I believe the actual 'slips' were sent to Cammell Laird to launch RRS Sir David Attenborough.
Thanks, just saw it on the photo's George Allison posted today ..

Image

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
tomuk wrote: sent to Cammell Laird to launch RRS Sir David Attenborough
Small, but tangible proof of UK shipbuilding becoming an 'ecosystem' rather than just insular companies, in which type of environment losing one contract kills the whole company off
- cranes to Belfast, and all that
If Bae Govan doesn't get the type 26 batch 2 order, they close. Forever.

Post Reply