Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 03 Dec 2022, 11:35 The difference between the often referred to a tier 1 and 2 is really persistent and endurance and perhaps not quite as advanced sensor systems.
That’s not my understanding - historically it’s been about the number of guns. The last tier two was the Type 21, the T21 endurance was pretty much the same as other ships in the fleet.
SW1 wrote: 03 Dec 2022, 11:35 If we are going to persist with enduring east of suez presence and fwd deployed units in general I would have 8 ,10, 8. That being 8 type 26, 10 type 31 and 6 mcm patrol motherships (I would suggest selecting the Dutch/Belgium design for local build) with a focus on mcm and underwater unmanned system development.
So no T45s and only 8 T26s to escort the CSGs? No ASW frigates for the North Atlantic. Sorry, but I know you like the T31 but this makes zero sense.

It makes more sense to say 6 T45s and 8 T26s moving to ultimately 12-15 T26s with a third batch of AAW enhanced T26s.
”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: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

What I would like to see as far as tier's is

Type 26 = C1 with 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 CAMM , 24 Mk-41 VLS
Type 31 = C2 with 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 16 Mk-41 VLS
RB2's = C3 with 40mm , 2 x 12.7 mm , 10 Hero 120

now I could go with a 95m class of the Belgium / Dutch MCM allowing for better range and a bit more speed

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 03 Dec 2022, 14:24
SW1 wrote: 03 Dec 2022, 11:35 The difference between the often referred to a tier 1 and 2 is really persistent and endurance and perhaps not quite as advanced sensor systems.
That’s not my understanding - historically it’s been about the number of guns. The last tier two was the Type 21, the T21 endurance was pretty much the same as other ships in the fleet.
SW1 wrote: 03 Dec 2022, 11:35 If we are going to persist with enduring east of suez presence and fwd deployed units in general I would have 8 ,10, 8. That being 8 type 26, 10 type 31 and 6 mcm patrol motherships (I would suggest selecting the Dutch/Belgium design for local build) with a focus on mcm and underwater unmanned system development.
So no T45s and only 8 T26s to escort the CSGs? No ASW frigates for the North Atlantic. Sorry, but I know you like the T31 but this makes zero sense.

It makes more sense to say 6 T45s and 8 T26s moving to ultimately 12-15 T26s with a third batch of AAW enhanced T26s.
The type 31 is based on a hull that is from a top tier nato navy and it’s principle ship so from a survival side is very gd. It’s a capable ship.

Yes no type 45. And yes the carrier group is the carrier and 4 type 26 modified as suggested with a higher end radar and putting weapons in the mk41 systems and possibly adding to that. You then have a high end construct split between a high and low readiness group. This would be the force that is in the North Atlantic the carrier group hence my suggestion it is the uk commitment to what is in essence the US 6th fleet area.

The type 31 takes over the fwd deployed role as a reliable maintainable ships along the lines I mentioned previously of 4 in Gibraltar and 4 in Diego Garcia and the remaining two as fleet ready escort and patrol around the uk.

Cloth will have to be cut accordingly going fwd.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

With all due respect to Denmark, they have a small capable navy but they are not top tier.

With a long running build programme 15 T26s is affordable, assuming a drumbeat of 1 ship built every 20 months. Increasing AAW capabilities of a later batch is more than possible and cost effective, especially given the RCN and RAN will be doing exactly the same thing.

15 hulls comfortably covers the 2 CSGs, NA ASW Patrols, FRE and Kipion.

A second tier frigate / Sloop that has been designed from ground up as a mothership can then cover the original MHPC requirement. This is not the T31 whose design is 20 years old and was not done with a UUV/USV mothership in mind. Probably a class of 8-12, built on a similar build drumbeat.

All other RN ships need to be converted designs like HMS Protector, the new MRoSS etc.

The affordability of anything else is questionable to say the best.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 03 Dec 2022, 05:34 As 2023-2033 plan has zero commitment to T83 development activity, we need to consider several "plan-Bs" now.

Motivation
In the past, 2013, we all remember what happened when T26 start-of-build delayed for 3 years. No plan-B, and to keep the shipyard alive, RN was forced to order 5 River B2 OPVs. Brazilian Amazonas OPV and Al Khareef Corvette were the only two designs BAE owned the IP which are new enough, and small changes in Amazonas OPV will provide an OPV which meets RN standard, while large amount of rework was needed to make a Khareef Corvette into a large OPV meeting RN standard. Hence we saw 5 River OPVs to come.

What if we had a good "large OPV design" (modifying Khareef on to Dutch Holland class equivalent)? RN would have had, 4 River B1 OPVs, 3 Holland-level-OPV(H) (using the £0.65Bn for River B2 OPVs), no T31 (£2Bn freed), and 10 T26 (2 more hull with £1.7Bn) and £0.3Bn to either "upgrade all the 10 T26's radar kits", or "up-arm the 3 Holland-level-OPV(H) to a corvette level".

Prospects
BAES Clyde's T26 build will end around 2035 (for delivery of the 8th hull in 2036 to RN). If properly handled, T83 build shall start around 2034, for delivery to RN around 2038, at the latest case. Better be 1 year earlier. As designing (concept, rough and detail) will require at least 4 years, the design work must start on 2030 or 2029 with significant investments.

If the designing will start on 2034 (as no money within ten years), the first steel cut shall be 2039, 1st of hull delivery on 2044, into service on 2046. (or later). So, at least 5-years gap is foreseen.

I am NOT pessimistic here in any sense. Just being realistic. Thing will go better, or go worse. So, thinking of filling this 5 years gap, between 2034-2039 is MUST. It is not a fantasy fleet, not a pessimistic claim. Just clear and present tasks needed in UK.

Of course, some resource might be found in future (within 5 years or so) to start T83 design activity by 2029. But, betting ALL in such an optimistic standpoint is NOT a good way when talking about defense.
(continues...)
If we wre starting with blank sheet of paper, I would have loved to see RN equivalent of Dutch Holland-class or even French Floréal-class - something in the region of 105-110m length (for operation of helicopters), 3,500-4,000 t displacement, 4-4.5m draught. i.e. somewhere in between the current T31 and River B2 in size. As a gobal patrol ship armed with 1*57mm cannon and 2*30-40mm secondary guns plus 12.7mm / 7.62mm GPMG. Like aforementioned Holland and Floréal classes these would have been ideal for patrolling British Overseas Territories maritme zones and assisting our allies in anti-piracy policing and patrolling global shipping lanes (e.g. Operation Kipion).

The most realistic way of achieving that would be to stretch the xisiting River B2 design by a further 15-20m length, fitting a hangar, and improving armanent and radar/sensors etc. That could free up the T31's to be likewise uparmed and improved radar and sonar so that they could act as actual Frigates, like the Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class upon which they were based.

Given the lack of fuding for the T32, I am leaning towards better equipping the hulls we already have rather than trying to squeeze in more escort hulls that we don't have the funds for or crew. I agree that we should nt be looking for any brand new escort designs - we are better off trying to amend existing designs that are already proven - an evolution of new batches. That reinforces what others have said previously that we can only afford one naval ship design bureau, hopffully with the best of both BAE and Babcock rather than trying to appease both.

And with the tightened Defence spending (as per the lastest NAO report) we are going to be able to keep two shipyards busy long term with just escort production, unless both Govan and Rosyth work on blocks. I would like to keep both BAE and Babcock going so that compettition keeps BAE on their toes, but can't see that we can afford it. It might have to be Rosyth that remains flexible, maybe building River Class batch 3's or MRSS, mayb building blocks for new escorts for Govan to do assembly and the more technically demanding work.

So maybe the answer in these times of both financial constraints and greater global and European stability is to go for low cost stretched Batch 3's:
- T26 Batch 3 stretched with extra VLS cells and improved radar for BAE
- River Batch 3 stretched with hellicopter hangar. improved armanent and radar/sensors etc for Babcock
(The former would be instead of costly new design for T83, while funding for the latter would be instead of any T32 ships).

The above is partly thinking about USN recent shipbuilding. When they have tried revolutionary changes in ship designs e.g. Gerald Ford carriers, Zumwalt destroyers and both designs of Littoral Combat Ships, it has been very costly with lots of teetching troubles. Yet when they have gone for more evolutionary imporovement with Batches bringing in improvments, e.g. Arleigh Burke DD, San Antonio LPD and even America LHA, they have fared far better.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 03 Dec 2022, 11:35 The difference between the often referred to a tier 1 and 2 is really persistent and endurance and perhaps not quite as advanced sensor systems.

If we are going to persist with enduring east of suez presence and fwd deployed units in general I would have 8 ,10, 8. That being 8 type 26, 10 type 31 and 6 mcm patrol motherships (I would suggest selecting the Dutch/Belgium design for local build) with a focus on mcm and underwater unmanned system development.

At present a carrier has 2 type 45 and 2 type 23 assigned to it. In future if that is 4 type 26 say then even in the current RN configuration of 24 mk41 and 24 camm then a future group would have the equivalent of 2 type 45 worths of aster 30 vertical launch silos and 3 type 23s worth of camm. Add an additional 8 cell mk41 to the type 26 equivalent to configuration seen in Australia and Candida and you have almost the equivalent of 3 of each.

Obviously they do not all need to be surface to air missiles all of the time and configuration would be up to those leading it at the time. Maybe doing to aster what the US has done to sm6 would offer more options.

The carrier groups principle region of use would be equivalent to the U.S. 6th fleet for the foreseeable future.
What missile are you fitting to the Mk41 fitted T26+ for AAW? Because it isn't going to be Aster or are we going to pay for Mk41 integration too on the bargain 'hot' production line T26+.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

tomuk wrote: 03 Dec 2022, 21:04
SW1 wrote: 03 Dec 2022, 11:35 The difference between the often referred to a tier 1 and 2 is really persistent and endurance and perhaps not quite as advanced sensor systems.

If we are going to persist with enduring east of suez presence and fwd deployed units in general I would have 8 ,10, 8. That being 8 type 26, 10 type 31 and 6 mcm patrol motherships (I would suggest selecting the Dutch/Belgium design for local build) with a focus on mcm and underwater unmanned system development.

At present a carrier has 2 type 45 and 2 type 23 assigned to it. In future if that is 4 type 26 say then even in the current RN configuration of 24 mk41 and 24 camm then a future group would have the equivalent of 2 type 45 worths of aster 30 vertical launch silos and 3 type 23s worth of camm. Add an additional 8 cell mk41 to the type 26 equivalent to configuration seen in Australia and Candida and you have almost the equivalent of 3 of each.

Obviously they do not all need to be surface to air missiles all of the time and configuration would be up to those leading it at the time. Maybe doing to aster what the US has done to sm6 would offer more options.

The carrier groups principle region of use would be equivalent to the U.S. 6th fleet for the foreseeable future.
What missile are you fitting to the Mk41 fitted T26+ for AAW? Because it isn't going to be Aster or are we going to pay for Mk41 integration too on the bargain 'hot' production line T26+.
Yes we would pay to integrate aster in mk41. If your suggesting that’s too difficult then no mk41 should be anywhere the vessels and sylver system installed instead.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

That just adds more cost to the program. The French and Italians are still fitting Aster and Sylver to their PPI and FDI frigates amongst others.

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 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2022, 18:29 If we wre starting with blank sheet of paper, I would have loved to see RN equivalent of Dutch Holland-class or even French Floréal-class - something in the region of 105-110m length (for operation of helicopters), 3,500-4,000 t displacement, 4-4.5m draught. i.e. somewhere in between the current T31 and River B2 in size. As a gobal patrol ship armed with 1*57mm cannon and 2*30-40mm secondary guns plus 12.7mm / 7.62mm GPMG. Like aforementioned Holland and Floréal classes these would have been ideal for patrolling British Overseas Territories maritme zones and assisting our allies in anti-piracy policing and patrolling global shipping lanes (e.g. Operation Kipion).
Agree.
... Given the lack of fuding for the T32, I am leaning towards better equipping the hulls we already have rather than trying to squeeze in more escort hulls that we don't have the funds for or crew. I agree that we should nt be looking for any brand new escort designs - we are better off trying to amend existing designs that are already proven - an evolution of new batches. That reinforces what others have said previously that we can only afford one naval ship design bureau, hopffully with the best of both BAE and Babcock rather than trying to appease both.
With the Belfast standing up and T32 gone (yes, I expected it), it become a bit difficult for Babcock to survive as a ship builder. A big problem.
...I would like to keep both BAE and Babcock going so that compettition keeps BAE on their toes, but can't see that we can afford it. It might have to be Rosyth that remains flexible, maybe building River Class batch 3's or MRSS, mayb building blocks for new escorts for Govan to do assembly and the more technically demanding work...
So maybe the answer in these times of both financial constraints and greater global and European stability is to go for low cost stretched Batch 3's:
- T26 Batch 3 stretched with extra VLS cells and improved radar for BAE
- River Batch 3 stretched with hellicopter hangar. improved armanent and radar/sensors etc for Babcock
(The former would be instead of costly new design for T83, while funding for the latter would be instead of any T32 ships).
Reasonable idea, how to keep Rosyth and Clyde working. But, I think keeping two escort builder is inefficient and put big negative to RN. Ordering many mid-class or low-level "escort like" ships just to keep the shipyard going, is exactly what was the River B2 costing £650M for RN.

If built independently and in proper way, 5 River B2 shall cost less than £500M. I guess it should have been even ~£400M.

I think keeping two escort builder is a bad idea. How to avoid "monopoly-induced high cost"? Ask many other nations, they are doing it. It is only UK that pretend "monopoly-induced high cost" is inevitable. All the other nations will just tell you that, simply the irresponsibility, incapability, and lack of commitment to control cost, of UK-MOD, is the root cause.

How to keep Clyde as a high-end escort builder and "think some way" to keep Rosyth alive (as any kind of ship builder), is the way we shall think of.

Another radical idea is, "Babcock buy Clyde, and close it, move the man-power to Forth (not so far away), to focus every escort work on Rosyth" ? I'm afraid BAE is happy to sell the business if it does not make (big) profit...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

BAE and Babcock can both be kept going with some focus, stability and forward planning by HMG. Given the financial issues are primarily (for now) short term, a long term pipeline of T26 for BAE and T31/32 for Babcock is sustainable.

We aren’t talking about a new hull every 12 months closer to every 18-24 months, but that is ok and gives the ability to scale up if and when needed.

H&W Belfast and Appledore can easily be kept productive with RFA vessels and also conversions. Alongside the three FSSs, I’m thinking the best replacement for Argus would be another conversion. Appledore can also get involved with converting the MROS and MCM motherships.
”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: 04 Dec 2022, 03:25 I think keeping two escort builder is a bad idea.
I agree that the RN cannot support a builder building similar ships, the demand / money will never be there to make it efficient and ensure necessary skills are retained in both yards.

However, the navy is big enough to support two warship builders, each focusing on a different type of warship. BAE tier one frigates / destroyers and Babcock Mothership Sloops (I’ve avoided the word Frigate to highlight the difference). The RN needs 12+ of each in service at any time, enough to support a decent pipeline.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

tomuk wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 02:57 That just adds more cost to the program. The French and Italians are still fitting Aster and Sylver to their PPI and FDI frigates amongst others.
It’s remains something of an odd decision that mk41 has been chosen on type 26, when we have nothing to put in them and at the same time are spending large sums to develop a future anti ship and land attack missile with the French who most certainly won’t be using mk41.

Which to my mind would mean all our long range air defence, anti ship and land attack missiles that we have funded will all be sylver launched.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 03:25…..T32 gone
Too fast IMO to be assured of the permanent deletion of the T32 programme.

What would RN rather have going forward? The T31 or the T32?

If the T32 ultimately becomes a large, flexible, simple to build, multipurpose hull able to deploy a wide array of unmanned systems for a price similar to the T31 then the answer is clear.

The Tier 2 Frigate that RN has always wanted is the T32 after the T26s became unaffordable. The T31 was forced upon RN by the Treasury to reduce costs but it was a knee jerk decision to please the bean counters and policy makers of the day.

Rather than cancel the T32 why not just sell the T31s to Ukraine, New Zealand etc and give RN the Frigates that are wanted and needed?

Building the five T31s ultimately for export followed by ten T32s for RN would keep the Rosyth drumbeat going to at least 2040.

If the T83 programme follows the T26 programme as it should, both Scottish yards have decades of work on the order books.

If H&W Belfast becomes a commercial mega yard once again propped up by RN and RFA amphibious and auxiliary builds, Cammell Laird becomes the main refit hub and everyone else bids for blocks etc then the UK shipbuilding and refit sectors would be looking at a sustainable future for decades.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
serge750

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 03:25
wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2022, 18:29 If we wre starting with blank sheet of paper, I would have loved to see RN equivalent of Dutch Holland-class or even French Floréal-class - something in the region of 105-110m length (for operation of helicopters), 3,500-4,000 t displacement, 4-4.5m draught. i.e. somewhere in between the current T31 and River B2 in size. As a gobal patrol ship armed with 1*57mm cannon and 2*30-40mm secondary guns plus 12.7mm / 7.62mm GPMG. Like aforementioned Holland and Floréal classes these would have been ideal for patrolling British Overseas Territories maritme zones and assisting our allies in anti-piracy policing and patrolling global shipping lanes (e.g. Operation Kipion).
Agree.
... Given the lack of fuding for the T32, I am leaning towards better equipping the hulls we already have rather than trying to squeeze in more escort hulls that we don't have the funds for or crew. I agree that we should nt be looking for any brand new escort designs - we are better off trying to amend existing designs that are already proven - an evolution of new batches. That reinforces what others have said previously that we can only afford one naval ship design bureau, hopffully with the best of both BAE and Babcock rather than trying to appease both.
With the Belfast standing up and T32 gone (yes, I expected it), it become a bit difficult for Babcock to survive as a ship builder. A big problem.
...I would like to keep both BAE and Babcock going so that compettition keeps BAE on their toes, but can't see that we can afford it. It might have to be Rosyth that remains flexible, maybe building River Class batch 3's or MRSS, mayb building blocks for new escorts for Govan to do assembly and the more technically demanding work...
So maybe the answer in these times of both financial constraints and greater global and European stability is to go for low cost stretched Batch 3's:
- T26 Batch 3 stretched with extra VLS cells and improved radar for BAE
- River Batch 3 stretched with hellicopter hangar. improved armanent and radar/sensors etc for Babcock
(The former would be instead of costly new design for T83, while funding for the latter would be instead of any T32 ships).
Reasonable idea, how to keep Rosyth and Clyde working. But, I think keeping two escort builder is inefficient and put big negative to RN. Ordering many mid-class or low-level "escort like" ships just to keep the shipyard going, is exactly what was the River B2 costing £650M for RN.

If built independently and in proper way, 5 River B2 shall cost less than £500M. I guess it should have been even ~£400M.

I think keeping two escort builder is a bad idea. How to avoid "monopoly-induced high cost"? Ask many other nations, they are doing it. It is only UK that pretend "monopoly-induced high cost" is inevitable. All the other nations will just tell you that, simply the irresponsibility, incapability, and lack of commitment to control cost, of UK-MOD, is the root cause.

How to keep Clyde as a high-end escort builder and "think some way" to keep Rosyth alive (as any kind of ship builder), is the way we shall think of.

Another radical idea is, "Babcock buy Clyde, and close it, move the man-power to Forth (not so far away), to focus every escort work on Rosyth" ? I'm afraid BAE is happy to sell the business if it does not make (big) profit...
I was coming around to the idea that if T320 were unbudgeted for as proper Frigates,, that we could only keep one yard, Govan, as specialising in Escort construction once the 5*T31 were finished.

Hence the suggestion of Rosyth switching to building greater variety of ships. There MIGHT be the option of them building simpler blocks for any new frigates (allowing BAE to concentrate on more technical blocks and assembly of future escorts).

But otherwise Babcock could build the MRSS and future OPV / Sloops. My suggestion of stretched Batch 3 Rivers was intended to provide low cost, low crew Global Patrol Sloop with T31 being armed, equipped and used as proper Frigates.

With T32 seemingly unfunded, that was the way it seemed to me to get the most out of our planned 19 actual escorts.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 11:04
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 03:25…..T32 gone
Too fast IMO to be assured of the permanent deletion of the T32 programme.

What would RN rather have going forward? The T31 or the T32?

If the T32 ultimately becomes a large, flexible, simple to build, multipurpose hull able to deploy a wide array of unmanned systems for a price similar to the T31 then the answer is clear.

The Tier 2 Frigate that RN has always wanted is the T32 after the T26s became unaffordable. The T31 was forced upon RN by the Treasury to reduce costs but it was a knee jerk decision to please the bean counters and policy makers of the day.

Rather than cancel the T32 why not just sell the T31s to Ukraine, New Zealand etc and give RN the Frigates that are wanted and needed?

Building the five T31s ultimately for export followed by ten T32s for RN would keep the Rosyth drumbeat going to at least 2040.

If the T83 programme follows the T26 programme as it should, both Scottish yards have decades of work on the order books.
Not convinced. The reason why T83 is (virtually) postponed and T32 (hopefully not cancelled but just postponed) is simply because of lack of money. And, money has "no color". If you invest on T32, T83 will go farther away. If invest on T83, T32 will be scrapped. And, as currently none of them has money, any of this two possibility is "if we try hard".
If H&W Belfast becomes a commercial mega yard once again propped up by RN and RFA amphibious and auxiliary builds, Cammell Laird becomes the main refit hub and everyone else bids for blocks etc then the UK shipbuilding and refit sectors would be looking at a sustainable future for decades.
I'm always surprised with those comment proposing to keep UK shipyard "as inefficient as possible". Keeping Clyde, Barrow, Rosyth, Beltast, and Appledore, Cammell Laird, Firgason, A&P all "at the minimum level of order for survival" will just make RN weaker and weaker, because it forced MOD to pay more for less output. In other words, it is to sacrifice RN to keep the many shipyards active... As being inefficient, no export order can come. Weaker again.

I think the other way.

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 »

On plan-B.

Plan-A: find a resource to design T83 on time This will deeply depend on what kind of AAW system it will adopt. Remain on Aster world, or go for AEGIS world. Note that, AAW system development costs even more than the ship design cost. If RN accept going with AEGIS, or just "import" France/Italian system, RN only needs ship design. If new UK-included AAW system is needed, UK need to pay for it. And, we know both has no money allocated now (until 2033).

Also, pushing strong for "T83 and new AAW system" may mean T32 banned.

Plan-B: It is highly likely that we shall see delay of T83. If design work starts around 2033, the first hull will be delivered about 8 year later on 2041, I guess. Even in the case of T45, which had Horizon program as a starter, it tool 8 years to delivery and 10 years to be "in service". So, Clyde needs some ships to deliver from 2035-2041, 5-6 years long.

If we try to fill this gap with "more T26", it will be 3 hulls with "2 years drumbeat" (which is 33% longer than the "1.5 years drumbeat of the 8 hulls). Slow build means higher cost, sadly. So, ideas like
Plan-B-option-1: selling 3 T26 B1s to get 3 more batch 3 T26
Plan-B-option-2: selling all 5 T31s to get 3 more batch 3 T26
come in. I think both is "not a bad idea". In view of export, selling all 5 T31 is more easy, I guess.

Plan-B-option-3: Something like River B2 OPVs? As I understand, MOD ordered 5 OPVs to save 3 years. So, to save 5-6 years, we need an amount of order equivalent to 8-10 River B2 OPVs. On 2036, 3 River B1 are 33 years old and would have been gone ("replaced" by T31), and 5 River B2s are 16-18 years old. Selling the later may work, as originally planned for River B1 in 2016, but RN do NOT need 8-10 OPVs.


So, I think a mix of Plan-B-option-1, 2 and 3 shall be sensible. Rosyth? Forget it as an escort builder. Fight with Belfast and Cammel Laird for 4 Point-replacements, 4 MHC-LSV, 1 MROSS (2nd hull), to survive for the day when LPD/LSD replacements will come.

Note that in either case, I forget about T32. With tight budget (as well as man-power), RN do NOT need it. Not saying T32 itself is bad. Just saying, introducing T32 shall force big cuts elsewhere, and I cannot find any.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 11:04
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 03:25…..T32 gone
Too fast IMO to be assured of the permanent deletion of the T32 programme.

What would RN rather have going forward? The T31 or the T32?

If the T32 ultimately becomes a large, flexible, simple to build, multipurpose hull able to deploy a wide array of unmanned systems for a price similar to the T31 then the answer is clear.

The Tier 2 Frigate that RN has always wanted is the T32 after the T26s became unaffordable. The T31 was forced upon RN by the Treasury to reduce costs but it was a knee jerk decision to please the bean counters and policy makers of the day.

Rather than cancel the T32 why not just sell the T31s to Ukraine, New Zealand etc and give RN the Frigates that are wanted and needed?

Building the five T31s ultimately for export followed by ten T32s for RN would keep the Rosyth drumbeat going to at least 2040.

If the T83 programme follows the T26 programme as it should, both Scottish yards have decades of work on the order books.

If H&W Belfast becomes a commercial mega yard once again propped up by RN and RFA amphibious and auxiliary builds, Cammell Laird becomes the main refit hub and everyone else bids for blocks etc then the UK shipbuilding and refit sectors would be looking at a sustainable future for decades.
I do agree for the most part type 31 and the RB2's were a knee jerk reaction however we now have a number of roads too chose from

1 ) build more type 31 and RB2's for the for the C2 & C3 fleets
2 ) design type 32 to be a 140 meter multi role frigate with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 VLS , 8 to 16 NSM capable of operating all UAV , USV & USSV sell all type 31's and 2 RB2's
3 ) build 3 more Type 31 and then buy into the Belgium Dutch MCM program and build a 97 meter sub class of that ship
4 ) build 1 more type 31 and then build a class of 10 MHPC 105 x 17 meters OPV standard hull with a cap price of 100 million per ship sell all RB2's

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 13:26I do agree for the most part type 31 and the RB2's were a knee jerk reaction however we now have a number of roads too chose from

1 ) build more type 31 and RB2's for the for the C2 & C3 fleets
2 ) design type 32 to be a 140 meter multi role frigate with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 VLS , 8 to 16 NSM capable of operating all UAV , USV & USSV
3 ) build 3 more Type 31 and then buy into the Belgium Dutch MCM program and build a 97 meter sub class of that ship
4 ) build 1 more type 31 and then build a class of 10 MHPC 105 x 17 meters OPV standard hull with a cap price of 100 million per ship
So you are focusing on how to save Rosyth? How about Clyde. Abandon it?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 13:26 2 ) design type 32 to be a 140 meter multi role frigate with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 VLS , 8 to 16 NSM capable of operating all UAV , USV & USSV sell all type 31's and 2 RB2's
Maybe a compromise of the above?

Due to the scale of RNs ambitions what is the ideal fleet balance going forward?

IMO, in terms of capability, the T31 is too much and not enough. The OPVs are virtually unarmed and the T32 project is in danger of not realising the full potential. The T26 is about right albeit the mission space is too small.

The T32 spec detailed above looks about right although I would aim for 16x Mk41 cells plus 32 CAMM. A credible ASW capability also needs to be established primarily for detecting unmanned subsurface drones as well as tracking SSKs in Littoral zones. Clearly this ASW capability may actually be a drone or drones also. Retaining hanger space for two Wildcats or Wildcat sized drones is crucial.

The current OPV armament is a joke but considering crew safety and survivability it is no laughing matter. All RN OPVs that leave the UK EEZ should have at least a single 40mm plus 2x 30mm firing 3P, Artisan or equivalent and the ability to embark a Wildcat. Increasing that to 57mm/2x40mm with 3P even better. Anything less is negligent IMO.

Bearing all that in mind IMO the perfect fleet balance going forward is straight 8’s.

8x T83 (T26 ASW/AAW)
8x T26
8x T32
8x OPV

Simple, Affordable, Proportionate

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 »

Anyway, I think the higher priority now is to design a new OPV.

River B1 dates back to 2000, and River B2 basically reuses its design. So it will be 35 years old design when it might be required to fill the gap between T26 and (delayed) T83. As T83 delays, BAES design team also need some "training" to keep their skill. There are those positive reasons to develop a new generation of OPV family on BAES.

How about a vastly simplified and compact version of "Adaptable Strike Frigate" concept? Say,
- large OPV version: 110 m long, 15 m wide (10m longer and 1m wider than Khareef class), 3500t FLD, 24knot. Stern power ramp (Palfinger) for USV deploy, and 2x RHIB davits in the port-side. 1x 57 mm gun, 1x 40 mm gun, a Merlin capable flight deck and hangar (shifted to starboard), Artisan 100 3D radar, ~6x 20ft Container locations (4 under flight deck, 2 on the deck)

Shall have a "heavy corvette option" for export, adding 12x CAMM, 8x NSM, and a hull sonar.

- small OPV version: 90 m long, 15 m wide (common hull base design), 2200t FLD, 24knot. Stern power ramp (Palfinger) for USV/RHIB deploy, and 2x RHIB davits in both sides. 1x 30 or 40 mm gun, a Merlin capable flight deck, Navigation radar, 5-6x 20ft Container locations (some optionally on the flight deck) = direct replacement for River B2 but with a power stern ramp.

Similarly, it shall be with a "corvette option" for export, adding 8x NSM, MANPADS, and a hull sonar, replacing the forward gun with 57 or 76 mm ones.

This will also be important for possible export (Global Britain). To design this, I propose to modify the MCH-program-related vessels program from 4x LSVs and 1x OSV, to 2x OSV and 2x of this smaller-OPV version. This "LSV" version can be a bit slower, with 20knot speed. With this design prepared, BAE/UK will be able to push for export in corvette/OPV market, and also prepare for the delay of T83, as a candidate for plan-B (OPV) program.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqwargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 13:32
Tempest414 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 13:26I do agree for the most part type 31 and the RB2's were a knee jerk reaction however we now have a number of roads too chose from

1 ) build more type 31 and RB2's for the for the C2 & C3 fleets
2 ) design type 32 to be a 140 meter multi role frigate with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 VLS , 8 to 16 NSM capable of operating all UAV , USV & USSV
3 ) build 3 more Type 31 and then buy into the Belgium Dutch MCM program and build a 97 meter sub class of that ship
4 ) build 1 more type 31 and then build a class of 10 MHPC 105 x 17 meters OPV standard hull with a cap price of 100 million per ship
So you are focusing on how to save Rosyth? How about Clyde. Abandon it?

Option 5 ) design a class of 105 x 17 meter MHPC's fitted with 3D radar, good CMS , 2 x 40mm , 1 x 8 round LMM mount plus be capable of operating all unmanned kit with a cost cap of 100 million a ship

this would be a class of 12 ships with 6 being built by both BAE and Babcock. Bae would build there 6 between Type 26 & type 83 with Babcocks building there's between type 31 & 32

As these new ships come in they would replace the River B1 & B2 , Echo's & MCMV

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

All these usv, uavs and unmanned submarines are going to cost money, as will the weapons systems that go into the ships. Ship numbers will reduce from where they are today to afford them.

every single one of these posts are increasing numbers of ships being built and every single report on the future equipment program shows that there is no money there to do it. The more high end ships you add the greater the cut else where there will need to be.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoserge750

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 16:13 All these usv, uavs and unmanned submarines are going to cost money, as will the weapons systems that go into the ships. Ship numbers will reduce from where they are today to afford them.

every single one of these posts are increasing numbers of ships being built and every single report on the future equipment program shows that there is no money there to do it. The more high end ships you add the greater the cut else where there will need to be.
I agree in part however if we commit to building 12 OPV's as I laid out above and don't want all 12 you work hard to find a export customer to take two or more off your hands but we do need fighting ships

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 16:27
SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 16:13 All these usv, uavs and unmanned submarines are going to cost money, as will the weapons systems that go into the ships. Ship numbers will reduce from where they are today to afford them.

every single one of these posts are increasing numbers of ships being built and every single report on the future equipment program shows that there is no money there to do it. The more high end ships you add the greater the cut else where there will need to be.
I agree in part however if we commit to building 12 OPV's as I laid out above and don't want all 12 you work hard to find a export customer to take two or more off your hands but we do need fighting ships
The best comparable navy to ourselves with similar budgets is the French. They have 10 fremm/horizon, and 5 fdi replacing the La Fayette as the c1, c2 esq. construct. We will not be affording more than that. You can have 8 and 10 or the French 10 and 5 but unless we are prepared to plan it in now we will be sticking our head in the sand and having to cut more in future. If you doubt that just look at the last 20 years.

There is benefit having a modern efficent single naval vessel building yard but it is not on the Clyde there is not enough space and the politicians are not brave enough to explain it.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

My view is we would end up with

6 Type 83
8 x type 26
6 x type 32
10 x New 105 x 17 meter MHPC

the French will end up with

2 x Horizon
8 x FREMM
5 x FDI
12 x Europe corvette or the like to replace there Floreal & D'Estienne d'Orves classes

Post Reply