Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3814
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 224 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Well as I have said I would like to see 3 more of each giving us 8 of each with 4 stationed each side of Suez something like

Atlantic
2 x RB2 & 2 x T-31 home fleet
2 x T31's based in Gib 1 for the Med & 1 for AP/S
1 x RB2 FIGS
1 x RB2 AP/N

EoS
1 x T31 Gulf
1 x T31 & 2 RB2's Indian Ocean
2 x T31 & 2 RB2's Pacific Ocean

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 235 times
Been liked: 243 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 16:17
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 08:47Interesting figure to see how the River B2 OPVs will go along with T31.
Best scenario is to sell the OPVs and buy more T31.

The rivers are a bodge, one that should be corrected at the earliest opportunity
Nice to see you, Shark Bait-san.

I agree it is one idea to reduce as much OPV as possible to relocate as many man-power to front-line assets. But, this also means sending T31 for fishery protection and/or smuggler hunting is also a waste. Then, how many OPVs shall UK need?

- British water fishery protection; RN River OPVs are not contracted anymore for that task. But, I guess at least two hulls shall be there for "fishery problems" handling, shadowing Russian/Chinese ships, and some training. [ 2 OPVs ]

- Falklands Islands guard ship; one OPV shall be there for fishery protection, counter smugglers, and say "hello" or "sayonara" to Argentina OPVs. [1 OPV ]

- Caribbean guard ship; can be handled with either Tide, Argus or Bay? [ 0 or 1 OPV ]

- Gibraltar guard ship; As fishery and smuggler is not critical there for UK, can be better handled with a T31? [ 0 OPV ]

- Pacific and KIPION; As fishery and smuggler is not critical there for UK, can be better handled with a T31? [ 0 OPV ]

All this gives 2 + 1 + (0 or 1) OPVs. Current 8-hulls OPV force has 30x3 = 90 souls from 3 River B1s (I guess they are not x1.5 crewed anymore), and 54x5 (=36x1.5x5) = 270 souls from 5 River B2s = in total 360 souls. If the 3 (or 4) OPVs were to be River B2s, they will need 54x3 (or 4) souls, leaving 198 or 144 souls. In other words, can put at least one T23 or T26 or T31 back into service.

(although I am still happy with the 8 OPV fleet, because of vastly increased sea-going days).

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 805 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 20:20
shark bait wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 16:17 Best scenario is to sell the OPVs and buy more T31.

The rivers are a bodge, one that should be corrected at the earliest opportunity
I think you’ve mixed up OPV with T31, and vice versa.
To me they, i.e. River B2's and T31, are both bodged in different ways.

I have always said that my opinion is that in the T31 the MOD have bought a good hull at a great fixed price but then failed to spend enough on weapons, sensors and other equipment. I hate the whole concept of Fitted For But Not With and am concerned it will take fair bit of money and a long wait until T31's next major servicing (because supposedly their weapons, sensors and equipment can't be changed in the build phas diue to the aforementioned fixed contract), before the T31's can become a decent General Purpose Frigate, able to defend and attack against foes on land, sea, air and underwater. And yes to me that includes getting better radars and sonars and more VLS cells, with decent spread of missiles.

If we were looking for say 5-6 global patrol / light frigates/sloops/corvettes/whatever you want to call them, then if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper, I would have preferred a ship longer and larger than the River B2's, but shorter and smaller than the A140 design. Something around the 105-110m length and with a helicopter hangar big enough to carry 1 Wildcat. Have it adjoining a good sized boat bay for RIB's etc. But over tim the helicopter and RIB's would be phased out as UAV and USV/USuV capabilities improve. Deploy one each to Carribean / Falklands / Gibralter / Bahrain / Singapore with maybe 1 ship spare for either UK waters or to cover future servicing and repairs.

That would give the RN a warship cabable of acting indepently across areas which are either British Overseas territories and/or major global shipping lanes. They would cover the medium intensity missions allowing the T26's and T45's to focus on peer level high intensity warfighting. As well as helping to defend British Overseas Territories they would be working with our allies covering patrolling of the major chokepoints to global shipping lanes, anti-piracy operations etc.

I still felt that there would be a place for smaller RN Patrol Vessels. especially given the shrinking of the MCMS fleet. We have huge areas of the worlds Oceans coverd by our Exclusive Maritime Zones, not just in UK but also surrounding British Overseas Territores, many of which are marine conservation areas within the UK's Blue Belt Programme. The RN's Overseas Patrol Squadron has the responsibility of fishery protection which is going to become ever more important as the Chinese mega trawlers finish scouring their local waters and start moving out to the South Pacific and Indian Oceans and beyond.

I have argued before that there is scope for using a common ship design across MOD, and Foriegn / Development Offices, with small changes in sensors and equipment to carry out the various low intensity missions inluding fishery protection, anti-smuggling, SAR and HADR. I used the example of XV Patrick Blackett as a smaller, cheaper vessel than the River B2's.

But unfortunately we are not starting from a blank sheet of paper, and realistically any further frigates ordered will be using the T31 as a base for starting point, no doubt adding some of those funky toys and drones that everyone seemed to love when they were included in BAE's powerpoint presentation for potential T32. So getting the most out of the T31's large hull space to add better weapons, sensors (incl radars and sonar) and othe equipment to get the most out of them whilst keeping additional crew requirements and alteration costs as low as possible.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3239
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 158 times
Been liked: 207 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 00:46 To me they, i.e. River B2's and T31, are both bodged in different ways.
I’d argee with that. The B2 should have had a hangar for example, but due to politics (“it must not look remotely like a frigate”) then it’s not perfect.

However, the T31 purpose as currently stated is to be a forward based light frigate. With the defence budget now flat at best, or at worse falling 10% in real terms per annum, money needs to be focused on high priority needs. I see no high priority strategic need to increase the number of frigates East of Suez or replace OPVs with frigates elsewhere. Even Kipion arguably might be better served with more MHPC style design.

Yes, OPVs are limited in what they can do, but they do provide a significant percentage of what a light frigate can provide (and in some areas such as it’s ability to operate in shallower waters / from smaller ports more), and they do this at a cheaper cost. And when combined with additional RFA assets and frequent CSG/SSN visits to region then I do think the requirement for “Global Britain” is met.

Lastly, whilst the T31 design chosen would not have been my choice, its systems can be upgraded to fulfil a new role. But as we all know, the more we add, the more it costs, and the less suitable it becomes to be the forward based light frigate that it’s supposed to be targeted for.
”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: 3814
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 224 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 00:46
Repulse wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 20:20
shark bait wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 16:17 Best scenario is to sell the OPVs and buy more T31.

The rivers are a bodge, one that should be corrected at the earliest opportunity
I think you’ve mixed up OPV with T31, and vice versa.
To me they, i.e. River B2's and T31, are both bodged in different ways.

I have always said that my opinion is that in the T31 the MOD have bought a good hull at a great fixed price but then failed to spend enough on weapons, sensors and other equipment. I hate the whole concept of Fitted For But Not With and am concerned it will take fair bit of money and a long wait until T31's next major servicing (because supposedly their weapons, sensors and equipment can't be changed in the build phas diue to the aforementioned fixed contract), before the T31's can become a decent General Purpose Frigate, able to defend and attack against foes on land, sea, air and underwater. And yes to me that includes getting better radars and sonars and more VLS cells, with decent spread of missiles.

If we were looking for say 5-6 global patrol / light frigates/sloops/corvettes/whatever you want to call them, then if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper, I would have preferred a ship longer and larger than the River B2's, but shorter and smaller than the A140 design. Something around the 105-110m length and with a helicopter hangar big enough to carry 1 Wildcat. Have it adjoining a good sized boat bay for RIB's etc. But over tim the helicopter and RIB's would be phased out as UAV and USV/USuV capabilities improve. Deploy one each to Carribean / Falklands / Gibralter / Bahrain / Singapore with maybe 1 ship spare for either UK waters or to cover future servicing and repairs.

That would give the RN a warship cabable of acting indepently across areas which are either British Overseas territories and/or major global shipping lanes. They would cover the medium intensity missions allowing the T26's and T45's to focus on peer level high intensity warfighting. As well as helping to defend British Overseas Territories they would be working with our allies covering patrolling of the major chokepoints to global shipping lanes, anti-piracy operations etc.

I still felt that there would be a place for smaller RN Patrol Vessels. especially given the shrinking of the MCMS fleet. We have huge areas of the worlds Oceans coverd by our Exclusive Maritime Zones, not just in UK but also surrounding British Overseas Territores, many of which are marine conservation areas within the UK's Blue Belt Programme. The RN's Overseas Patrol Squadron has the responsibility of fishery protection which is going to become ever more important as the Chinese mega trawlers finish scouring their local waters and start moving out to the South Pacific and Indian Oceans and beyond.

I have argued before that there is scope for using a common ship design across MOD, and Foriegn / Development Offices, with small changes in sensors and equipment to carry out the various low intensity missions inluding fishery protection, anti-smuggling, SAR and HADR. I used the example of XV Patrick Blackett as a smaller, cheaper vessel than the River B2's.

But unfortunately we are not starting from a blank sheet of paper, and realistically any further frigates ordered will be using the T31 as a base for starting point, no doubt adding some of those funky toys and drones that everyone seemed to love when they were included in BAE's powerpoint presentation for potential T32. So getting the most out of the T31's large hull space to add better weapons, sensors (incl radars and sonar) and othe equipment to get the most out of them whilst keeping additional crew requirements and alteration costs as low as possible.
The RN had that choice in the Type 31 comp it could of had the 117 meter Leander in fact at the time when we got the RB2's we could of got 4 dumbed down 99 meter Khareef class ships but the RN went for A140

For me if BAE had not been so greedy and pushed a dumbed down Khareef class fitted with a Sea Giraffe 3d radar 57mm 2 x 30mm we could by now had 10 of them with say 6 of them fitted with CAMM

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6113
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:55 Nice to see you, Shark Bait-san.
Nice to hear from you too Donald-san.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 14:55 Then, how many OPVs shall UK need?
The UK needs a hand full of patrol boats. The Royal Navy should have zero.

You produced a list of tasks, and for the Royal Navy the best thing is to not do any of them. Instead admiralty should focus on the unique characteristic of a Navy.

The lower level tasks can be handled by civilians and law enforcement. Perfect scenario would be a law enforcement coast guard for the patrol tasks, and I recognise that is extremely unlikely.
@LandSharkUK

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2723
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 75 times
Been liked: 260 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 09:39 The RN had that choice in the Type 31 comp it could of had the 117 meter Leander in fact at the time when we got the RB2's we could of got 4 dumbed down 99 meter Khareef class ships but the RN went for A140

For me if BAE had not been so greedy and pushed a dumbed down Khareef class fitted with a Sea Giraffe 3d radar 57mm 2 x 30mm we could by now had 10 of them with say 6 of them fitted with CAMM
It was the River Batch 2's that I was surprised by....£650m in the mid 2010's...

RN could have had 5 Khareef's for the money and still fulfilled TOBA. Or more credibly 5 x Avenger's (the stretched River Class). More ship for the money, better prepared for unmanned ops for the future but not a massive increase in running cost or manning.
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SD67
Member
Posts: 565
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 93 times
Been liked: 104 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Timmymagic wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 12:12
It was the River Batch 2's that I was surprised by....£650m in the mid 2010's...
It's called price gouging and it's the reason T31 exists. The T26 batch 2 is 30% cheaper per unit than batch 1 in NOMINAL TERMS, ie 50% cheaper after inflation. I do not believe that Govan has suddenly become 50% more efficient - it's Babcocks down the road. Lesson learnt.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2317
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 72 times
Been liked: 106 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Timmymagic wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 12:12 ……more credibly 5 x Avenger's (the stretched River Class). More ship for the money, better prepared for unmanned ops for the future but not a massive increase in running cost or manning.
Exactly. The RB2s were a bad decision. They are working efficiently but it’s a missed opportunity and RN must take a share of any blame.

The most sensible solution IMO is to replace the three RB1s with three RB3s or Avengers.

In addition, maybe BMT could come up with a better design that could be constructed at Appledore in a more cost effective way. Something like a modified Venari (with hanger) stretched out to 105m with a 16m beam achieving around 24 knots.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 235 times
Been liked: 243 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SD67 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 12:29
Timmymagic wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 12:12
It was the River Batch 2's that I was surprised by....£650m in the mid 2010's...
It's called price gouging and it's the reason T31 exists. The T26 batch 2 is 30% cheaper per unit than batch 1 in NOMINAL TERMS, ie 50% cheaper after inflation. I do not believe that Govan has suddenly become 50% more efficient - it's Babcocks down the road. Lesson learnt.
Initial costs, jigs, detailed designing, establishing manuals and qualification systems, needs at least 2 unit cost equivalent. See FREMM. It is not that Clyde became 50% more efficient. Just initial cost has been payed. Also, I'm sure the Australia and Canadian T26 orders are "sharing" the support cost of digital designing systems. At least for me, the value is not a surprise.

SD67
Member
Posts: 565
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 93 times
Been liked: 104 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

No it doesn't. Your figures are not even in the same solar system. The entire Frigate Factory at Rosyth was under 100 million and that included building the shed from scratch, recruiting a workforce from scratch, new IT systems, everything. Nothing as fundamental as that has been done on the Clyde. Also the design contract was separate.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
SW1

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2317
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 72 times
Been liked: 106 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

It will be interesting to see what infrastructure H&W gets for £77m in Belfast.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 235 times
Been liked: 243 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 00:46 To me they, i.e. River B2's and T31, are both bodged in different ways.

I have always said that my opinion is that in the T31 the MOD have bought a good hull at a great fixed price but then failed to spend enough on weapons, sensors and other equipment. I hate the whole concept of Fitted For But Not With and am concerned it will take fair bit of money and a long wait until T31's next major servicing (because supposedly their weapons, sensors and equipment can't be changed in the build phas diue to the aforementioned fixed contract), before the T31's can become a decent General Purpose Frigate, able to defend and attack against foes on land, sea, air and underwater. And yes to me that includes getting better radars and sonars and more VLS cells, with decent spread of missiles.
Interesting you think T31 as a multi-purpose frigate. But, it is a "General Purpose frigate", or a sloop. Never intended to be a MP frigate. See T31 RFI.
If we were looking for say 5-6 global patrol / light frigates/sloops/corvettes/whatever you want to call them, ... I would have preferred a ship longer and larger than the River B2's, but shorter and smaller than the A140 design. Something around the 105-110m length and with a helicopter hangar big enough to carry 1 Wildcat. Have it adjoining a good sized boat bay for RIB's etc. But over tim the helicopter and RIB's would be phased out as UAV and USV/USuV capabilities improve. Deploy one each to Carribean / Falklands / Gibralter / Bahrain / Singapore with maybe 1 ship spare for either UK waters or to cover future servicing and repairs.
If you add a long leg and good top speed, a bit better sensor and a bit Frigate-standard resility, then you get T31.

Actually, by introducing the "already existing design" and avoiding detailed design costs, T31 "luckily" grown up to be Arrowhead 140 from a "120m version of River series" (the Leander).

Similarly, your "simple OPV" has been grown to be River B2, so that it can do global patrol.

So I think what RN is doing is very similar to what you said, but just adopting one-level higher (not lower) assets. The T31 sloop (GP frigate) is not intended to be a Multi-purpose frigate. River B2 is not intended to be a sloop.

Practically speaking, if the money is fixed, RN's way is one idea. But, (as I said many times) I'd prefer 2 more T26 (yes it turned out to be £1.6Bn or even less), use extra £400M to add 3 (so-called) "River B3" (100-110m with hangar) in place of the £2Bn T31 program cost. But this is just another personal idea, I admit.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Repulse

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 235 times
Been liked: 243 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SD67 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 13:04 No it doesn't. Your figures are not even in the same solar system. The entire Frigate Factory at Rosyth was under 100 million and that included building the shed from scratch, recruiting a workforce from scratch, new IT systems, everything. Nothing as fundamental as that has been done on the Clyde. Also the design contract was separate.
No it is not. The building-hall is a very small part of the all tasks.

Building something complex in systematic manner does cost a lot in its initial phase. "Complex" means so. For example, you can see French FREMM program is using 3-unit cost equivalent for the initial cost.

I work on complex something (not ship building). But, "detailed designing" cost really really a lot. It is not just buying a welding machine. It is more about how to qualify your work, establishing all the plan of build in steps, establishing how to perform integration testing (so that every needed verification was done before the ship actually "fights"). Just wiring electronics box will never make the system work.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Repulse

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 12:12
Tempest414 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 09:39 The RN had that choice in the Type 31 comp it could of had the 117 meter Leander in fact at the time when we got the RB2's we could of got 4 dumbed down 99 meter Khareef class ships but the RN went for A140

For me if BAE had not been so greedy and pushed a dumbed down Khareef class fitted with a Sea Giraffe 3d radar 57mm 2 x 30mm we could by now had 10 of them with say 6 of them fitted with CAMM
It was the River Batch 2's that I was surprised by....£650m in the mid 2010's...

RN could have had 5 Khareef's for the money and still fulfilled TOBA. Or more credibly 5 x Avenger's (the stretched River Class). More ship for the money, better prepared for unmanned ops for the future but not a massive increase in running cost or manning.
It's been explained that there was not time for any kind of meaningful design work. That left a candidate list of one.

Not even enough time to add a hangar which was a Navy desire.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 12:29
Timmymagic wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 12:12
It was the River Batch 2's that I was surprised by....£650m in the mid 2010's...
It's called price gouging and it's the reason T31 exists. The T26 batch 2 is 30% cheaper per unit than batch 1 in NOMINAL TERMS, ie 50% cheaper after inflation. I do not believe that Govan has suddenly become 50% more efficient - it's Babcocks down the road. Lesson learnt.
You're dividing contracts by units without knowing what's in the contracts. Then comparing results. Beyond dumb.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2317
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 72 times
Been liked: 106 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 14:25 It's been explained that there was not time for any kind of meaningful design work. That left a candidate list of one.

Not even enough time to add a hangar which was a Navy desire.
True for the first three hulls but not the second two.

BAE/HMG/MoD and RN had two years to incorporate a hanger in the design of hulls four, five and ideally six.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 805 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Timmymagic wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 12:12
Tempest414 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 09:39 The RN had that choice in the Type 31 comp it could of had the 117 meter Leander in fact at the time when we got the RB2's we could of got 4 dumbed down 99 meter Khareef class ships but the RN went for A140

For me if BAE had not been so greedy and pushed a dumbed down Khareef class fitted with a Sea Giraffe 3d radar 57mm 2 x 30mm we could by now had 10 of them with say 6 of them fitted with CAMM
It was the River Batch 2's that I was surprised by....£650m in the mid 2010's...

RN could have had 5 Khareef's for the money and still fulfilled TOBA. Or more credibly 5 x Avenger's (the stretched River Class). More ship for the money, better prepared for unmanned ops for the future but not a massive increase in running cost or manning.
Yes I think it was either Leander or Avenger designs I was thinking of. Big enough to carry helicopters in the short term before focus switches to UAV's in the medium - long term.

Would happily call them sloops or corvettes or whatever term if the RN didnt want to call them frigates. Oh well.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 805 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 13:54
wargame_insomniac wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 00:46 To me they, i.e. River B2's and T31, are both bodged in different ways.

I have always said that my opinion is that in the T31 the MOD have bought a good hull at a great fixed price but then failed to spend enough on weapons, sensors and other equipment. I hate the whole concept of Fitted For But Not With and am concerned it will take fair bit of money and a long wait until T31's next major servicing (because supposedly their weapons, sensors and equipment can't be changed in the build phas diue to the aforementioned fixed contract), before the T31's can become a decent General Purpose Frigate, able to defend and attack against foes on land, sea, air and underwater. And yes to me that includes getting better radars and sonars and more VLS cells, with decent spread of missiles.
Interesting you think T31 as a multi-purpose frigate. But, it is a "General Purpose frigate", or a sloop. Never intended to be a MP frigate. See T31 RFI.
If we were looking for say 5-6 global patrol / light frigates/sloops/corvettes/whatever you want to call them, ... I would have preferred a ship longer and larger than the River B2's, but shorter and smaller than the A140 design. Something around the 105-110m length and with a helicopter hangar big enough to carry 1 Wildcat. Have it adjoining a good sized boat bay for RIB's etc. But over tim the helicopter and RIB's would be phased out as UAV and USV/USuV capabilities improve. Deploy one each to Carribean / Falklands / Gibralter / Bahrain / Singapore with maybe 1 ship spare for either UK waters or to cover future servicing and repairs.
If you add a long leg and good top speed, a bit better sensor and a bit Frigate-standard resility, then you get T31.

Actually, by introducing the "already existing design" and avoiding detailed design costs, T31 "luckily" grown up to be Arrowhead 140 from a "120m version of River series" (the Leander).

Similarly, your "simple OPV" has been grown to be River B2, so that it can do global patrol.

So I think what RN is doing is very similar to what you said, but just adopting one-level higher (not lower) assets. The T31 sloop (GP frigate) is not intended to be a Multi-purpose frigate. River B2 is not intended to be a sloop.

Practically speaking, if the money is fixed, RN's way is one idea. But, (as I said many times) I'd prefer 2 more T26 (yes it turned out to be £1.6Bn or even less), use extra £400M to add 3 (so-called) "River B3" (100-110m with hangar) in place of the £2Bn T31 program cost. But this is just another personal idea, I admit.
Greetings Donald-san. I thought I had used the term General-Purpose rather than Multi-Purpose, but if I had said the latter, then I meant it as opposed to a specialist AAW escort like T45 or a specialised ASW escort like T26.

I feel any RN escort needs to, as a minimum, be able to defend itself from a wide variety of enemy foes, even if it is not a specislit at that task.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3814
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 224 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 14:25
Timmymagic wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 12:12
Tempest414 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 09:39 The RN had that choice in the Type 31 comp it could of had the 117 meter Leander in fact at the time when we got the RB2's we could of got 4 dumbed down 99 meter Khareef class ships but the RN went for A140

For me if BAE had not been so greedy and pushed a dumbed down Khareef class fitted with a Sea Giraffe 3d radar 57mm 2 x 30mm we could by now had 10 of them with say 6 of them fitted with CAMM
It was the River Batch 2's that I was surprised by....£650m in the mid 2010's...

RN could have had 5 Khareef's for the money and still fulfilled TOBA. Or more credibly 5 x Avenger's (the stretched River Class). More ship for the money, better prepared for unmanned ops for the future but not a massive increase in running cost or manning.
It's been explained that there was not time for any kind of meaningful design work. That left a candidate list of one.

Not even enough time to add a hangar which was a Navy desire.
This may or may not be true as they made some 12 design changes to the OPV-90 to make the River B2 the Khareef class could have been dumbed down both the OPV-90 and Khareef ship classes had been built at around the same time and were well known

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

With the T-31, we do seem to have forgotten the lessons we painfully learnt in the Falklands. Many of our Warships had gaping holes in their capabilities that were known, but the speed of the deployment would have curtailed any modification to even partially rectify them. There is a danger that the T-31 looks like a Frigate and therefore may end up being used as one in a conflict it has not been equipped for. Even FFBNW is not a real option especially if said work requires time in a Naval yard, unless we build a few in far flung places to support deployments.

For me, I agree with items above in that any RN Escort should always be fitted out with sufficient SAMs and have a decent AShM installed. A full suite of sensors should also be considered, maybe not as capable as say the T-26, but enough to give the vessels a decent all-round picture of its surroundings.

To me the RN has always be light on the kit installed on them, and too specialised. In future we need escorts with more capability, with a primary one but also a secondary and maybe a tertiary. The RAF has learnt this lesson and its current and future generations of fast jets are much more capable and carry out multiple missions without alteration except for the hardware loaded. THe T-45 is a good example of a platform being too specialised, made worse by the decision to remove the Harpoons they originally carried. Few other Navies follow specialisation to the same extent. For me the RN's level of specialisation may have worked when the escort fleet was around fifty ships but now every vessel needs to be more capable. Yes, this will increase the cost of individual ships, but imagine we fight a conflict where we lose the same number of ships we did in the Falklands because individual ships were lacking in vital capabilities.

For me the T-83 need to be a UK version of the latest Arleigh Burke Destroyer as used by the USN but with three or four more Mk41 eight cell VLS. I would say this design criteria need to be made a must have and the money found whilst not reducing numbers. In fact, there are many critical capabilities all three of our service lack and should be included in the relevant programme regardless of cost. But that is a whole new argument for elsewhere.

SD67
Member
Posts: 565
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 93 times
Been liked: 104 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 14:29
SD67 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 12:29
Timmymagic wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 12:12
It was the River Batch 2's that I was surprised by....£650m in the mid 2010's...
It's called price gouging and it's the reason T31 exists. The T26 batch 2 is 30% cheaper per unit than batch 1 in NOMINAL TERMS, ie 50% cheaper after inflation. I do not believe that Govan has suddenly become 50% more efficient - it's Babcocks down the road. Lesson learnt.
You're dividing contracts by units without knowing what's in the contracts. Then comparing results. Beyond dumb.
Hey Ron great to see you back it’s been getting way too polite and chummy round here :D

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 235 times
Been liked: 243 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 16:14
Ron5 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 14:25 It's been explained that there was not time for any kind of meaningful design work. That left a candidate list of one.

Not even enough time to add a hangar which was a Navy desire.
True for the first three hulls but not the second two.

BAE/HMG/MoD and RN had two years to incorporate a hanger in the design of hulls four, five and ideally six.
Exactly.

Chance-1: Of course, both BAES and RN knew that T26 build will delay even before the 1st River B2 were ordered, but still none of them considered designing/preparing an enlarged version of Amazonas OPV (like the "Cutlass" concept), nor OPV-version of Al Khareef corvette (mother of "Leander" concept).

Chance-2: After the 3 River B2 OPVs were ordered, the original plan was to start T26 build 2 years later. But, RN saw another delay of 1.5 years, and thus 2 more OPVs came in. Yes there could be some modification on "2nd-batch of River B2" = HMS Tamar and Spey, but nothing happened. I "guess" BAES design team was too busy to do anything else than T26 detailed design. So they did only small modification, making the two OPVs "greener".

Missing Chance-1 is very bad. Chance-2, a bit more understandable.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 235 times
Been liked: 243 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 18:32Greetings Donald-san. I thought I had used the term General-Purpose rather than Multi-Purpose, but if I had said the latter, then I meant it as opposed to a specialist AAW escort like T45 or a specialised ASW escort like T26.
Thanks. Sorry I was not clear. I meant, GP frigate in RN standard is "sloop", not a multli-purpose frigate. T81 tribal class was a sloop, later designated as GP frigate. The next GP frigate for RN was T21, as we all know. How to evaluate T81 and T21 depends on who does it, but I think T31 is exactly in the same group, "Long rage heavy corvette".

Actually, T31 has equipment-sets almost the same to that of Al Khareef class corvette.
I feel any RN escort needs to, as a minimum, be able to defend itself from a wide variety of enemy foes, even if it is not a specislit at that task.
Understandable argument, but I think it is rather vague. What will be included in "a wide variety of enemy foes"? For me,
<AAW>
- hypersonic ASM : maybe not
- sub-sonic ASM in large saturation attack: maybe not
- sub-sonic ASM a few at once: yes
- slow ASM drones in swarm : depends.

T31 complies perfectly. It has 12 (or more) CAMM, 57 mm gun, 2x 40 mm gun. Perfect.

<Anti Surface>
- carry hypersonic ASM : not needed
- carry long-range sub-sonic ASM : maybe yes
- carry smallish sub-sonic ASM : maybe yes
- carry only guns : for sure

T31 has SeaVenom and 57 mm gun. Good.

<ASW>
- hunting SSN/SSK: completely out of scope
- can cover a small area around herself in ASW against SSN/SSK: maybe yes
- can avoid torpedo attack: maybe yes
- carry a high-end ASW helicopter : maybe not
- carry a helicopter or UAV to provide sonobuoy cover: hopefully

T31 has Merlin capable hanger (only as an option), can carry Wildcat, will be able to carry ASW-capable (although limited) UAV (but, not now). It has torpedo defense system (good), and no hull sonar.

Anyway, T31 with a hull sonar cannot be used to hunt SSK/SSN. It is always inferior to SSK/SSN. Adding a hull sonar will slightly improve its survival probability. Of course, adding a torpedo defense system has a big effect, and thus adopted.

T31 meets the "minimums level", I think.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 553
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Lord Jim wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 22:35 With the T-31, we do seem to have forgotten the lessons we painfully learnt in the Falklands. Many of our Warships had gaping holes in their capabilities that were known, but the speed of the deployment would have curtailed any modification to even partially rectify them. There is a danger that the T-31 looks like a Frigate and therefore may end up being used as one in a conflict it has not been equipped for.
T31 is a frigate all that missing is the AShM which is missing off most of the other escorts until we pull our finger out and buy some NSM.

As regards sensors what's wrong with the NS100?

The T31 is a whole better capability than any imaginary River variant.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
SD67Tempest414

Post Reply