Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:55
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:23 You will be surprised to know that I do believe the same applies to the RAF it should only have 1 fastjet type.
Not in the least surprised, the RAF is constitutionally hostile to aircraft carriers and maritime air. Left to them, the carriers would be scrapped tomorrow.
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:23 And in relation to your other post adding new sensors/engines to a new build typhoon could very much be considered instead of tempest especially is a stealthy ucav was part of the mix.
Ha, ha, ha. The RAF giving up on Tempest? Pull the other one. And how do you transition from one aircraft type to another if only one type at a time is allowed in service?

BTW, stealthy UCAV seems to have bitten the UK dust. No more loyal wingmen just Walmart drones per Ukraine.
Tempest is also a systems development program. Your transition is the same way all the other airforces do, see France, australia and most off the European airforces as examples.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:58
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:02
SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 10:57 Or simply sell the early type 26 to countries currently running hand me down type 22/23 and keep iterating new builds at the end.
You seem to think the RN would keep any money generated from ship sales. Think again, it all goes to the Treasury.
I could have posted this half a dozen times in this thread over the past few days. Selling any military equipment does not increase the defence budget by one penny. If you can't afford a new ship, selling an old ship will just leave you shipless.
The French have demonstrated how you would do it with fremm. Win export orders by offering early delivery by selling in service ships tag a new one on the end.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

If money is going to get tighter then surely the higher priority areas survive at the expense of the lower.

RN's top 4 priorities:

1. CASD and it's freedom to operate

2. Carrier Strike

3. Commandos

4. Forward basing & extended reach

So ditch #4. Get rid of Type 31's, RB's, and their overseas bases. Leaves a surface fleet of: carriers, t23/t26, t45/t83, Tides/FSS & MRSS for CS and LRG. With oodles of F-35 & helo's.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:59
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:55
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:23 You will be surprised to know that I do believe the same applies to the RAF it should only have 1 fastjet type.
Not in the least surprised, the RAF is constitutionally hostile to aircraft carriers and maritime air. Left to them, the carriers would be scrapped tomorrow.
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:23 And in relation to your other post adding new sensors/engines to a new build typhoon could very much be considered instead of tempest especially is a stealthy ucav was part of the mix.
Ha, ha, ha. The RAF giving up on Tempest? Pull the other one. And how do you transition from one aircraft type to another if only one type at a time is allowed in service?

BTW, stealthy UCAV seems to have bitten the UK dust. No more loyal wingmen just Walmart drones per Ukraine.
Tempest is also a systems development program. Your transition is the same way all the other airforces do, see France, australia and most off the European airforces as examples.
So two types at once: Typhoon & Tempest. Kinda like having T23, T26 & T45 in service together. Penny drop yet?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 17:04
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:58
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:02
SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 10:57 Or simply sell the early type 26 to countries currently running hand me down type 22/23 and keep iterating new builds at the end.
You seem to think the RN would keep any money generated from ship sales. Think again, it all goes to the Treasury.
I could have posted this half a dozen times in this thread over the past few days. Selling any military equipment does not increase the defence budget by one penny. If you can't afford a new ship, selling an old ship will just leave you shipless.
The French have demonstrated how you would do it with fremm. Win export orders by offering early delivery by selling in service ships tag a new one on the end.
Don't be so obtuse:

1. UK sells ex-RN warships

2. Treasury gets money from sale

3. Money from sale goes into the general fund to reduce government spending defecit

4. Defence budget stays the same

5. New ships for the RN remain unaffordable

France has f*k all to do with it.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 17:11
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:59
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:55
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:23 You will be surprised to know that I do believe the same applies to the RAF it should only have 1 fastjet type.
Not in the least surprised, the RAF is constitutionally hostile to aircraft carriers and maritime air. Left to them, the carriers would be scrapped tomorrow.
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:23 And in relation to your other post adding new sensors/engines to a new build typhoon could very much be considered instead of tempest especially is a stealthy ucav was part of the mix.
Ha, ha, ha. The RAF giving up on Tempest? Pull the other one. And how do you transition from one aircraft type to another if only one type at a time is allowed in service?

BTW, stealthy UCAV seems to have bitten the UK dust. No more loyal wingmen just Walmart drones per Ukraine.
Tempest is also a systems development program. Your transition is the same way all the other airforces do, see France, australia and most off the European airforces as examples.
So two types at once: Typhoon & Tempest. Kinda like having T23, T26 & T45 in service together. Penny drop yet?
So your telling me that type 23 and type 45 being replaced with type 26 is the plan and that the future fleet is just type 26, didn’t say the same ships aren’t in service as they transition or are you just being deliberately stupid

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 17:15
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 17:04
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:58
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:02
SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 10:57 Or simply sell the early type 26 to countries currently running hand me down type 22/23 and keep iterating new builds at the end.
You seem to think the RN would keep any money generated from ship sales. Think again, it all goes to the Treasury.
I could have posted this half a dozen times in this thread over the past few days. Selling any military equipment does not increase the defence budget by one penny. If you can't afford a new ship, selling an old ship will just leave you shipless.
The French have demonstrated how you would do it with fremm. Win export orders by offering early delivery by selling in service ships tag a new one on the end.
Don't be so obtuse:

1. UK sells ex-RN warships

2. Treasury gets money from sale

3. Money from sale goes into the general fund to reduce government spending defecit

4. Defence budget stays the same

5. New ships for the RN remain unaffordable

France has f*k all to do with it.
So we can never operate differently or never operate with an export mentality to maintain an industrial base by learning from others. Ok then

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:58
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:02
SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 10:57 Or simply sell the early type 26 to countries currently running hand me down type 22/23 and keep iterating new builds at the end.
You seem to think the RN would keep any money generated from ship sales. Think again, it all goes to the Treasury.
I could have posted this half a dozen times in this thread over the past few days. Selling any military equipment does not increase the defence budget by one penny. If you can't afford a new ship, selling an old ship will just leave you shipless.
Assuming old ships cost nothing to maintain crew and operate

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 17:04
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:58
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:02
SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 10:57 Or simply sell the early type 26 to countries currently running hand me down type 22/23 and keep iterating new builds at the end.
You seem to think the RN would keep any money generated from ship sales. Think again, it all goes to the Treasury.
I could have posted this half a dozen times in this thread over the past few days. Selling any military equipment does not increase the defence budget by one penny. If you can't afford a new ship, selling an old ship will just leave you shipless.
The French have demonstrated how you would do it with fremm. Win export orders by offering early delivery by selling in service ships tag a new one on the end.
What French FREMM exports they have sold two one ex Normandie and the other fresh of the line to Egypt and Morroco both with massive French government backed loans.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

tomuk wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 18:57
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 17:04
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:58
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:02
SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 10:57 Or simply sell the early type 26 to countries currently running hand me down type 22/23 and keep iterating new builds at the end.
You seem to think the RN would keep any money generated from ship sales. Think again, it all goes to the Treasury.
I could have posted this half a dozen times in this thread over the past few days. Selling any military equipment does not increase the defence budget by one penny. If you can't afford a new ship, selling an old ship will just leave you shipless.
The French have demonstrated how you would do it with fremm. Win export orders by offering early delivery by selling in service ships tag a new one on the end.
What French FREMM exports they have sold two one ex Normandie and the other fresh of the line to Egypt and Morroco both with massive French government backed loans.
Thats the point several ships sold enable later ships to be built for their own navy and extending the production by 4-6 years so you don’t need to dream up pointless programs to fill gaps

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 20:00 Thats the point several ships sold enable later ships to be built for their own navy and extending the production by 4-6 years so you don’t need to dream up pointless programs to fill gaps
That assumes that the MN gets the cash from the sale (whether directly, or being recycled through the French Treasury). I find it odd that the French can figure this out and the UK Treasury can't.

It's almost as if the HM Treasury rules were designed to stop that sort of thing happening.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
SW1
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Caribbean wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 20:50
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 20:00 Thats the point several ships sold enable later ships to be built for their own navy and extending the production by 4-6 years so you don’t need to dream up pointless programs to fill gaps
That assumes that the MN gets the cash from the sale (whether directly, or being recycled through the French Treasury). I find it odd that the French can figure this out and the UK Treasury can't.

It's almost as if the HM Treasury rules were designed to stop that sort of thing happening.
Isn’t it. I’m not even sure it’s about getting the cash it’s like us supplying weapons to Ukraine there is an agreement that those will be replaced.

Win win for both parties export sales more people using their equipment. French armed forces get a newer ship less obsolescence and mods can be incorporated based on earlier ship use to improve defects.

Also like one country is interested in its industrial base and one isn’t.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 05:27
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 05 Dec 2022, 23:35 ….it will end up killing T83, I’m afraid.
Does RN actually need T83 or would a more numerous batch of T26 ASW/AAW be good enough?
My big concern with T83 has always been that a bigger ship will inevitably lead some beancounter to suggest that should cut numbers. With 6*AAW escorts the RN could have roughly 3 ships on active duty: 2 escorting a CSG and 1 on separate deployment, with others in wind down from active deployment, in planned maintenance, undergoing training and FOST, working up to be ready for active deployment etc.

If just 4*AAW escorts are available then that will effectively prohibit having one on separate deployment as the rest will need to cover just the CSG in rotation.

(Note that I am assuming that once T45's have all undergone PIP, that they will have greater availability, and that any new class of AAW escorts is also more reliable and thus also have greater availability for active service).

As well as ungrading their Anti Aircraft / Missile radars, then main thing that any new AAW escorts would need compared to the existing ASW T26's is number of VLS cells. When you look at most frontline navies in Indo Pacific, e.g. the USN / PLAN / JMSDF / ROKN, their AAW escorts are moving to increased number of VLS launchers with 90 / 96 / or even 112 VLS cells. Therefore any future RN AAW escort should have increased number of VLS cells.

Therefore I would be happy if RN took a lower risk evolutionary development of a stretched T26, with extra length mainly used to add more VLS cells that Batch 1 / 2 T26's.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 20:00
tomuk wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 18:57
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 17:04
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:58
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:02
SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 10:57 Or simply sell the early type 26 to countries currently running hand me down type 22/23 and keep iterating new builds at the end.
You seem to think the RN would keep any money generated from ship sales. Think again, it all goes to the Treasury.
I could have posted this half a dozen times in this thread over the past few days. Selling any military equipment does not increase the defence budget by one penny. If you can't afford a new ship, selling an old ship will just leave you shipless.
The French have demonstrated how you would do it with fremm. Win export orders by offering early delivery by selling in service ships tag a new one on the end.
What French FREMM exports they have sold two one ex Normandie and the other fresh of the line to Egypt and Morroco both with massive French government backed loans.
Thats the point several ships sold enable later ships to be built for their own navy and extending the production by 4-6 years so you don’t need to dream up pointless programs to fill gaps
Firstly it was two FREMM not several. It is the Italians who have exported FREMM more successfully.

Secondly how is giving away two vessels of benefit to the MN? They have just had to wait longer for the vessels promised.

And in the case of the French programme overall they have ended up with 8 FREMM instead of 17 although it is really only six because two are replacements for the Horizon class destroyers they didn't build either.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Comparisons with the circumstances and actions of other navies are interesting but of limited value.

Unless the next IR changes it, the aim of the government is that the RN is the premier navy in Europe. The strategic aim is simple, as a country to remain relevant (in NATO and globally) and reflect the geographical reality of the country (to invade a foe needs to control the seas).

How the RN achieves this aim is the real underlying question to what we are discussing - sure money is key, and notwithstanding there needs to be broadly enough money to be able to deliver (or it’s not an aim it’s a dream and should be called out as such), the RN has already shown in the past decade it can make significant changes without significant injections of cash. It’s about having a clear vision and plan, which in turn drives good and consistent decision making.

A fundamental question: to achieve this strategic aim, should the RN have mass or quality? Where is the balance?

It is clear to me (like it or not) that the whole surface strategy for the RN is based around the two carriers and their associated strike groups. These are to be peer fighting units that are globally deployable. These are what will make the RN Europe’s premier navy. Whilst it’s not the only thing the RN needs to do - local UK sea control / CASD are essential, it is where the bulk of the funds will go.

By making this choice in a world of finite funds the RN has already chosen quality over quantity - which is why the T31 decision IMO is incoherent to its strategic vision. To support globally deployable peer fighting CSGs it needs the best frigates and destroyers (let’s just call them T26s for avoidance of doubt). Coupled with this it needs logistics (tankers and solid support ships) and it needs a level of experience of operating in different regions (which is where the OPVs come in).

The ability to deploy / attach a LRG to a CSG is also an additional feature that will support the global relevance, but it’s not as important as people think and hence why the RN is openly limited in its ambition in this area.
”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 »

Repulse wrote: 07 Dec 2022, 07:44 Comparisons with the circumstances and actions of other navies are interesting but of limited value.

Unless the next IR changes it, the aim of the government is that the RN is the premier navy in Europe. The strategic aim is simple, as a country to remain relevant (in NATO and globally) and reflect the geographical reality of the country (to invade a foe needs to control the seas).

How the RN achieves this aim is the real underlying question to what we are discussing - sure money is key, and notwithstanding there needs to be broadly enough money to be able to deliver (or it’s not an aim it’s a dream and should be called out as such), the RN has already shown in the past decade it can make significant changes without significant injections of cash. It’s about having a clear vision and plan, which in turn drives good and consistent decision making.

A fundamental question: to achieve this strategic aim, should the RN have mass or quality? Where is the balance?

It is clear to me (like it or not) that the whole surface strategy for the RN is based around the two carriers and their associated strike groups. These are to be peer fighting units that are globally deployable. These are what will make the RN Europe’s premier navy. Whilst it’s not the only thing the RN needs to do - local UK sea control / CASD are essential, it is where the bulk of the funds will go.

By making this choice in a world of finite funds the RN has already chosen quality over quantity - which is why the T31 decision IMO is incoherent to its strategic vision. To support globally deployable peer fighting CSGs it needs the best frigates and destroyers (let’s just call them T26s for avoidance of doubt). Coupled with this it needs logistics (tankers and solid support ships) and it needs a level of experience of operating in different regions (which is where the OPVs come in).

The ability to deploy / attach a LRG to a CSG is also an additional feature that will support the global relevance, but it’s not as important as people think and hence why the RN is openly limited in its ambition in this area.
I agree mostly with this and is why I said up thread that for me the next design built should be a new 107 x 17 meter OPV/ MHPC which should follow type 31 at Rosyth with 16 ships built to replace first the MCMV's then the Echo lastly the River B2's.

We should bin types 32 & 83 and move to lets call it type 28 this should be a 160 x 22 meter capable of AAW and ASW and should be fitted with 1 x 127mm , 4 x 40mm , 16 x NSM & 80 x VLS with 18 ships being built to replace type 45 first followed by type 31 and last type 26

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

tomuk wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 23:58
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 20:00
tomuk wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 18:57
SW1 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 17:04
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:58
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 16:02
SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 10:57 Or simply sell the early type 26 to countries currently running hand me down type 22/23 and keep iterating new builds at the end.
You seem to think the RN would keep any money generated from ship sales. Think again, it all goes to the Treasury.
I could have posted this half a dozen times in this thread over the past few days. Selling any military equipment does not increase the defence budget by one penny. If you can't afford a new ship, selling an old ship will just leave you shipless.
The French have demonstrated how you would do it with fremm. Win export orders by offering early delivery by selling in service ships tag a new one on the end.
What French FREMM exports they have sold two one ex Normandie and the other fresh of the line to Egypt and Morroco both with massive French government backed loans.
Thats the point several ships sold enable later ships to be built for their own navy and extending the production by 4-6 years so you don’t need to dream up pointless programs to fill gaps
Firstly it was two FREMM not several. It is the Italians who have exported FREMM more successfully.

Secondly how is giving away two vessels of benefit to the MN? They have just had to wait longer for the vessels promised.

And in the case of the French programme overall they have ended up with 8 FREMM instead of 17 although it is really only six because two are replacements for the Horizon class destroyers they didn't build either.
Are the last 2 fremm built for the French navy more modern than the two they sold?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 21:50 Therefore I would be happy if RN took a lower risk evolutionary development of a stretched T26, with extra length mainly used to add more VLS cells that Batch 1 / 2 T26's.
IMO RN have another chance to increase hulls with the T83. If the T83 ends up being a AAW variant of the T26 with the Mk45 replaced by the 57mm to allow additional VLS along with a redesign of the mission space to fit the next-gen S1850M and extra CAMM then RN may actually succeed in growing the fleet.

The T26 design has become confused in recent years since the cut from 13 down to 8. Between escorting the CSG and conducting TAPS the opportunity for meaningful singleton deployments will be limited. Therefore, any T26 AAW variant does not require the global strike frigates multipurpose capabilities.
9AE6C020-0821-42DB-9D4A-81981800AD54.jpeg
Using the T26 hull as the basis for a dedicated AAW variant for the CSG lots of things can be deleted.

1. The mission space is not required apart from space for two RHIBs
2. 2087 is not required
3. Although a flight deck is a necessity does it need to be Chinook capable? I think not.
4. Is a hanger even necessary if the vessel is constantly in such close proximity to the CSG?
5. The Mk45 and associated auto ammo handling system is not required. A 57mm would be good enough.

The removal of the 5 items above would create a lot of extra space for additional VLS plus reduce top weight by a meaningful amount hopefully allowing whatever radar systems RN are developing to be successfully fitted.

Clearly if RN want a AAW cruiser the T26 can provide it if a totally focused approach is taken to building a highly capable CSG goalkeeper variant.

Any hull stretch will cost a lot of money, perhaps even resulting in the deletion of one hull from the programme. If it is unnecessary just don’t do it. Save the money and aim for a growing fleet.

If the budget for T83 is £8bn to £10bn lots of money could be saved possibly allowing a small third batch of T26.

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: 07 Dec 2022, 09:21
wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Dec 2022, 21:50 Therefore I would be happy if RN took a lower risk evolutionary development of a stretched T26, with extra length mainly used to add more VLS cells that Batch 1 / 2 T26's.
IMO RN have another chance to increase hulls with the T83. If the T83 ends up being a AAW variant of the T26 with the Mk45 replaced by the 57mm to allow additional VLS along with a redesign of the mission space to fit the next-gen S1850M and extra CAMM then RN may actually succeed in growing the fleet.

The T26 design has become confused in recent years since the cut from 13 down to 8. Between escorting the CSG and conducting TAPS the opportunity for meaningful singleton deployments will be limited. Therefore, any T26 AAW variant does not require the global strike frigates multipurpose capabilities.

9AE6C020-0821-42DB-9D4A-81981800AD54.jpeg

Using the T26 hull as the basis for a dedicated AAW variant for the CSG lots of things can be deleted.

1. The mission space is not required apart from space for two RHIBs
2. 2087 is not required
3. Although a flight deck is a necessity does it need to be Chinook capable? I think not.
4. Is a hanger even necessary if the vessel is constantly in such close proximity to the CSG?
5. The Mk45 and associated auto ammo handling system is not required. A 57mm would be good enough.

The removal of the 5 items above would create a lot of extra space for additional VLS plus reduce top weight by a meaningful amount hopefully allowing whatever radar systems RN are developing to be successfully fitted.

Clearly if RN want a AAW cruiser the T26 can provide it if a totally focused approach is taken to building a highly capable CSG goalkeeper variant.

Any hull stretch will cost a lot of money, perhaps even resulting in the deletion of one hull from the programme. If it is unnecessary just don’t do it. Save the money and aim for a growing fleet.

If the budget for T83 is £8bn to £10bn lots of money could be saved possibly allowing a small third batch of T26.
For me rather than looking to bodge type 26 into a AAW frigate starting a clean sheet design aimed at replacing Types 45, 31 & 26 would be the best way the way I see it we could build 18 new escorts and 18 new MHPC's for 18 billion over 24 years. if we built two class of 18 ships the we could keep the cost down to 850 to 900 million per ship and the MHPC at around 100 to 110 million this also has the added plus of keeping 2 ships working for the next 30 odd years
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Jensy

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

An AAW variant of the T26 makes a lot of sense.

The metal bashing parts are a small proportion of the ships value. The difficult and expensive parts are the electrical, mechanical and fluid systems that make the ship function. Its a complex web of highly interdependent systems, which are sometimes bodged together, but requires a lot of skill to integrate efficiently. The electrical mechanical and fluid system requitements will look very similar for a large ASW ship and for a large AAW ship so if this work can be copied over to the next generation destoryer it will save so much effort.

The hull can be tweaked here and there as the design evolves, but keeping the core systems the same how to save engineering. An easy example of this is the burke class, longer hull, but same engines because that's the hard bit.
These users liked the author shark bait for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqwargame_insomniac
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2022, 10:31 …a clean sheet design aimed at replacing Types 45, 31 & 26
Ideally that would be great but the last T26 will not need to replaced until the 2060s, I fear that timeline is too long. As a compromise using a common hull for the T26 and T83 would be an efficient outcome, especially if the funds saved allows for an extra 2 or 3 Type26s.

Saving £2bn from the T83 budget could effectively replace the entire Amphib fleet, build another SSN or put another squadron of F35 on PWLS.

These are efficiency savings that can be made that will increase capability and effectiveness. We must not let perfection become the enemy of good enough!

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The Canadians and Australians have very effective and high end aaw capabilities on there type 26 variants so it can be done

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 »

SW1 wrote: 07 Dec 2022, 11:27 The Canadians and Australians have very effective and high end aaw capabilities on there type 26 variants so it can be done
Do you mean as good as replacing T45?

I donot think so.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Ron5

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 07 Dec 2022, 12:15
SW1 wrote: 07 Dec 2022, 11:27 The Canadians and Australians have very effective and high end aaw capabilities on there type 26 variants so it can be done
Do you mean as good as replacing T45?

I donot think so.
Why do u not think so?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

If it can be done I am more than happy to start with a Type 26 hull form and working's i.e engines , pumps , generators , and so on but it may need 10 or so meters adding plus the whole upper works reconfigured to allow for a AAW radar system and up to 64 VLS cells

Post Reply