Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Repulse]

The Ukraine conflict needs to be a wake up call that Russia will increasingly become belligerent and aggressive on its western flank, whilst building stronger relationships with China, Iran and consolidating its control over former central USSR states in central Asia. This is the end of a start that has been brewing for years, and a complete change of posture.

All three UK services need to respond to this, it cannot be about the anyone service arguing for a bigger bit of the pie, they have to maximise what they have and what they can buy. As others point out this isn’t about more ships, it is more about creating a larger war fighting force that has real teeth.

My view is the following should be the top six things need to be done:

1) Ring fence a low level forward deployed fleet, keep the B2 Rivers as is long term, assign the two Echos, the two Waves and HMS Protector.
2) Kill the National Flagship.
3) Add another T26 to the build schedule - keep first rate fleet at 15 planning for 6 T83s. All should be fully kitted for ASW/AAW/ASuW warfare.
4) Build the 5 T31s full-fat and cancel the T32.
5) Build two small ASW carriers operating both helicopters and UUVs.
6) Plan for a long term fleet of 11+ SSNs.

For the war fighting fleet I would have:

- 3 T26s + 7 SSNs operating independently in the North Atlantic and Eastern Med regions.
- 1 T31 located in the Gulf.
- 2 ASW Groups (ASW Carrier + 2 T31s) rotating to give 100% coverage in the North Atlantic.
- 2 CSGs (QE plus up to 2 SSNs + 3 T45s + 3 T26s) operating globally as required.

[SW1]

The Ukraine conflict needs to be a wake up call that Russia will increasingly become belligerent and aggressive on its western flank, whilst building stronger relationships with China, Iran and consolidating its control over former central USSR states in central Asia. This is the end of a start that has been brewing for years, and a complete change of posture.

All three UK services need to respond to this, it cannot be about the anyone service arguing for a bigger bit of the pie, they have to maximise what they have and what they can buy. As others point out this isn’t about more ships, it is more about creating a larger war fighting force that has real teeth.

My view is the following should be the top six things need to be done:

1) Ring fence a low level forward deployed fleet, keep the B2 Rivers as is long term, assign the two Echos, the two Waves and HMS Protector.
2) Kill the National Flagship.
3) Add another T26 to the build schedule - keep first rate fleet at 15 planning for 6 T83s. All should be fully kitted for ASW/AAW/ASuW warfare.
4) Build the 5 T31s full-fat and cancel the T32.
5) Build two small ASW carriers operating both helicopters and UUVs.
6) Plan for a long term fleet of 11+ SSNs.

For the war fighting fleet I would have:

- 3 T26s + 7 SSNs operating independently in the North Atlantic and Eastern Med regions.
- 1 T31 located in the Gulf.
- 2 ASW Groups (ASW Carrier + 2 T31s) rotating to give 100% coverage in the North Atlantic.
- 2 CSGs (QE plus up to 2 SSNs + 3 T45s + 3 T26s) operating globally as required.

For the war fighting fleet I would have:

- 2 CSGs (2carriers + 2 SSNs + 4 T45s + 4 T26s) to give coverage in the Atlantic

Assign frigates/tanker to nato standing forces

[Repulse]

For the war fighting fleet I would have:

- 2 CSGs (2carriers + 2 SSNs + 4 T45s + 4 T26s) to give coverage in the Atlantic

Assign frigates/tanker to nato standing forces

I believe that the RN can afford to be more ambitious. I see the future force structure as three tiers:

- Low level forward presence: As described - lower level patrol ships, survey ships and RFAs building intelligence, supporting low key SF Ops, contributing to allied / UN constabulary commitments and training with foreign navies.
- War fighting defence: Securing the North Atlantic (inc CASD) and contributing to NATO standing groups in the Med. This would be through singleton deployments of Frigates and SSNs, plus I believe there needs to be two ASW groups (based around a small cheap carrier capable of operating up to 8 ASW helicopters) protecting the GIUK gap and harassing Russian submarines.
- Global power projection: Ability to act offensively (in a limited way) globally either independently. This is the role of the two CSGs.

By keeping the CSGs separate it allows the UK to apply pressure / make a significant statement by when and where it choses to deploy it's CSGs.

[donald_of_tokyo]

National Ship building strategy is coming soon !!

[SW1]

For the war fighting fleet I would have:

- 2 CSGs (2carriers + 2 SSNs + 4 T45s + 4 T26s) to give coverage in the Atlantic

Assign frigates/tanker to nato standing forces

I believe that the RN can afford to be more ambitious. I see the future force structure as three tiers:

- Low level forward presence: As described - lower level patrol ships, survey ships and RFAs building intelligence, supporting low key SF Ops, contributing to allied / UN constabulary commitments and training with foreign navies.
- War fighting defence: Securing the North Atlantic (inc CASD) and contributing to NATO standing groups in the Med. This would be through singleton deployments of Frigates and SSNs, plus I believe there needs to be two ASW groups (based around a small cheap carrier capable of operating up to 8 ASW helicopters) protecting the GIUK gap and harassing Russian submarines.
- Global power projection: Ability to act offensively (in a limited way) globally either independently. This is the role of the two CSGs.

By keeping the CSGs separate it allows the UK to apply pressure / make a significant statement by when and where it choses to deploy it's CSGs.

Low level fwd presence is a discussion and doable provided it is limited in the locations chosen

I think even what I suggest is ambitious. No point creating new “carriers” for asw helicopters when you can barely scrape together 8 asw helicopters for a single carrier we currently have.

Global power projection ideals is for the birds with our scale and budget.

[Scimitar54]

Well the Wake-up call has had little, if any positive effects has it? Eight years on and although we have the 2 x QEC, the Fleet and the rest of our armed forces are getting smaller. Perhaps, despite the rhetoric our defence cuts tell Putin all he really needs to know.

We tell him that we are going to levy heavy sanctions on Russia (and certain people/organisations in particular) giving him time to minimise the effects of those sanctions.
The only thing that WOULD have stopped him, would have been a sizeable presence of the armed forces of NATO countries on the ground iacross Ukraine AND the ability to Reinforce at will.
Signals are.important …… In the aftermath, WE SHOULD HAVE:-

Announced our intention to build a 3rd QEC Carrier.
Announced our intention to order a second batch (of 3) T45. (Far more useful and more of a deterrent than 5 x B2 Rivers).
Announced our intention to build 12 x T26.
Announced our intention to order a class (of 9) SSK Submarines, to be built if necessary by another NATO country.
Announced our intention to increase the number of MCM vessels.
Announced our intention to increase the size of the RFA.

We should then have proceeded to make and implement the decisions that would be necessary to achieve those intentions WHATEVER THE COST, with further steps to be taken as necessary.

As this is the Escort thread, I have confined my remarks to UK Naval forces although I am quite sure that the same sort of measures COULD (AND SHOULD) have been taken with regard to the other Arms of UK Defence.

[Jdam]

The only realistic way we are going to increase the number of ships is to keep ships that we currently have in service when the new ones come online. I don't think this is the most unrealistic thing in the world, it would require a bigger budget for man power but not equipment (I think) Its not like the Type 45 are going to have many miles on them when we enter the 30's and we have spend 100's of millions putting the type 23 through mid life ungraded very recently why cant they do on.

[tomuk]

The only realistic way we are going to increase the number of ships is to keep ships that we currently have in service when the new ones come online. I don't think this is the most unrealistic thing in the world, it would require a bigger budget for man power but not equipment (I think) Its not like the Type 45 are going to have many miles on them when we enter the 30's and we have spend 100's of millions putting the type 23 through mid life ungraded very recently why cant they do on.

I myself have made the point a number of times that T45 will be able to run on further than the nominal 25 years due to the low usage in their younger years. The only caution to that is their may well be obsolescence issues in their IEP power electronics, a steam plant is easier to keep going than no longer manufactured electronics.

The Type 23s have one through a LIFEX i.e. Life Extension not a mid life upgrade they will be well and truly worn out by the time all the T26s are completed.

[Lord Jim]

Anything beyond what is already planned is going to take "New" money being added to the equipment plan. If that were to happen what I would like to see is something I have repeatedly mentioned, namely building the eight planned T-26 in two distinct batched and adding a third that forms a bridge to the follow on to the T-45, which could be seen as a forth batch. This would give the Royal Navy a core fleet of top tier Escorts of between sixteen and eighteen, with the latter two batched becoming more progressively capable in AAW whilst retaining a good ASW and anti surface capabilities.

The Navy would also have between five and eight capable second Tier Warships based on the T-31 as currently planned but with additional capabilities added, such as greater AAW and Anti Surface capabilities. It is these vessels that would be forward deployed, complimenting the B2 Rivers, who themselves would be joined by a number of more capable OPVs, which could be a B3 River or a completely new design. This new OPV would have a 57mm as its standard main gun and would be able to carry additional systems in modular format gaining more capabilities and enabling them to truely compliments the Navy's escort force in times of War.

You may have notices that what I am suggesting matched the three Tier programme the Royal Navy was at one stage looking at in the noughties. One wonders how the Fleet would look now if they had followed through with that train of though.

[Tempest414]

Well if it was not clear before it is now we need to speed up type 23 refits plus the build of Type 26 and type 31 also we need to keep the Wave class as vital assets to enable NATO naval battle groups ships we also need to get on and build the SSS and bring Bulwark back into service

[wargame_insomniac]

Well if it was not clear before it is now we need to speed up type 23 refits plus the build of Type 26 and type 31 also we need to keep the Wave class as vital assets to enable NATO naval battle groups ships we also need to get on and build the SSS and bring Bulwark back into service

And also get T45's through PIP so they spend less time in port / broken down, and install extra VLS launchers so that they have better / more sustained anti air/missile defence (and in an ideal world update / replace the old Harpoon missiles on 4 of the ships).

[Jdam]

good point on the LIFEX.

I dont think we have a lot of options here, we are lucky we have 2 places making frigates right now. This is 20 years of cuts and under investment coming home to roost.

[wargame_insomniac]

good point on the LIFEX.

I dont think we have a lot of options here, we are lucky we have 2 places making frigates right now. This is 20 years of cuts and under investment coming home to roost.

Yes - and the fact that shipbuilding programmes take so long to plan, deliver and complete means we are as yet several years away from rectifying those years of cuts and under investment.

I hope the RN can persuade the MOD to cancel / postpone any further plans to retire ships early (incl HMS Montrose) and reactivate HMS Bulwark sooner than planned. I wonde can we reactivate HMS Trenchant?

Also ensure that the 4 Point Class Sealift vessels are readily available in case we need to move an Army Armoured Division in the near future.

[Scimitar54]

Jdam wrote.

I dont think we have a lot of options here, we are lucky we have 2 places making frigates right now. This is 20 years of cuts and under investment coming home to roost.

Much more like 30 years of cuts and under investment and a false sense of security thanks to the piss process.

[Jdam]

Jdam wrote.

I dont think we have a lot of options here, we are lucky we have 2 places making frigates right now. This is 20 years of cuts and under investment coming home to roost.

Much more like 30 years of cuts and under investment and a false sense of security thanks to the piss process.

I was being kind.

[SW1]

I don’t think that to be the case we spend a very significant sum on defence. We have for the last 20 years ignored our own back yard, our own national resilience and instead stuck our noses into ill advised foreign adventures of Blair and co to make them look important.

The numbers aren’t too bad, there is too many commitments, which leads to little contingency readiness ect. Spares, stockpiles, strategic mobility, wider force deployability while having resilience to avoid repeated deployments of the same people is what would help.

It requires a laser like focus on priorities on where you wish to deploy forces not a scattergun approach of little bits everywhere.

[Lord Jim]

Sending needs to go up to near 4% of GDP as it was in the 1980s and the orders for the next five T-26 placed and the programme speeded up. We can no longer continue our defence procurement in the lazy way it has been over the past three decades. The T-26 and T-31 programmes need to be restructures to deliver the ships as fast as possible and especially with the T-31, with additional capabilities. We can also not wait another ten or more years to obtain a replacement for Harpoon. We need a weapon system in service and installed on both our existing escorts as well as the T-26 and T-31 when the enter service. This means buying a canister weapons system rather than one fired form a Mk41 VLS as none of our existing Escorts have these installed.

[Scimitar54]

How about one that can be fired from either type of launcher?

[donald_of_tokyo]

How about one that can be fired from either type of launcher?

For example?

[Jensy]

The government has responded to the Defence Select Committee's report of last year, entitled 'we're going to need a bigger navy':



A few nuggets that caught my eye on first glance:

As set out in the Defence Command Paper, we committed to upgrading the Sea Viper air defence missile system for the Type 45 by late 2020s to provide a Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability for the RN and wider Defence. Sea Viper Evolution (SVE) will deliver the capability that will protect maritime units from a range of Ballistic Missile threats by the late 2020s. The Integrated Review funded SVE Capability 1, upgrading the RN’s missiles to the ASTER Block 1 standard. The RN will also conduct an Assessment Phase of SVE Capability 2, to further enhance this capability and cover a greater range of threats, utilising the ASTER Block 1 “New Technology” missile.

funding for the concept and assessment phase of Future Air Defence System is an essential step in building a counter hypersonic capability into our Type 45 replacement.

Work is ongoing to explore a range of options to meet the RN’s Future Offensive Surface Weapon (FOSuW) requirement to replace Harpoon which goes out of service in 2023. T his includes the potential fitting of Mk 41 launchers beyond those already planned for the Type 26, including Type 31 and potential retrofit to existing classes, to provide commonality with partner nations, improve interoperability and simplify the inventory of maritime offensive capabilities.

Interesting above, as the only "existing class" to retrofit to is Type 45.

On current plans, the transition into service of Type 31 and Type 26 to replace Type 23s will not introduce any capability gaps.

We are seeking to increase the number of ships fitted with Mk 41 launchers beyond the Type 26, including Type 31 and potential retrofit to existing classes, to provide commonality with partner nations, improve interoperability and simplify the inventory of maritime offensive capabilities. Finally, concept and assessment phases for the Type 32 frigate and Future Air Defence System have commenced, or are about to commence, and this too will examine the benefits of a common launcher.

Second time using the term Future Air Defence System, though Type 83 is also used interchangeably.

Many other bits relevant to other threads, ranging from MROSS, to FC/ASW, F-35B and SSNs.

[Jensy]

Lot of stuff to pick through there, but something that jumped out to me is an official confirmation that the requirement is for two Type 45's to support annual CSG operations (page 9/10). I personally expected it to wind down to 1 for more routine and lower profile deployments.

Nice bit of confirmation about plans for Sea Viper and at least a reaffirmation of the desire to give Type 45 BMD capabilities.

[Jdam]

Interesting above, as the only "existing class" to retrofit to is Type 45.

Great another 12 months they can be out the water for after they have had Sea Ceptor fitted

A lot of promise and little activity, nothing is going to change.

[Jensy]

Interesting above, as the only "existing class" to retrofit to is Type 45.

Great another 12 months they can be out the water for after they have had Sea Ceptor fitted

A lot of promise and little activity, nothing is going to change.

Also likely work to integrate BMD capability too. Not sure how intrusive that will be to the ship's systems?

A Type 45 can't break down if it's perpetually being upgraded! That should stop the papers being so nasty about the class....

[Jdam]

Theory from Gab for Ships 5 and 6. 2 years out the water for PIP and Sea Ceptor,

[dmereifield]

The government has responded to the Defence Select Committee's report of last year, entitled 'we're going to need a bigger navy':



A few nuggets that caught my eye on first glance:

As set out in the Defence Command Paper, we committed to upgrading the Sea Viper air defence missile system for the Type 45 by late 2020s to provide a Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability for the RN and wider Defence. Sea Viper Evolution (SVE) will deliver the capability that will protect maritime units from a range of Ballistic Missile threats by the late 2020s. The Integrated Review funded SVE Capability 1, upgrading the RN’s missiles to the ASTER Block 1 standard. The RN will also conduct an Assessment Phase of SVE Capability 2, to further enhance this capability and cover a greater range of threats, utilising the ASTER Block 1 “New Technology” missile.

funding for the concept and assessment phase of Future Air Defence System is an essential step in building a counter hypersonic capability into our Type 45 replacement.

Work is ongoing to explore a range of options to meet the RN’s Future Offensive Surface Weapon (FOSuW) requirement to replace Harpoon which goes out of service in 2023. T his includes the potential fitting of Mk 41 launchers beyond those already planned for the Type 26, including Type 31 and potential retrofit to existing classes, to provide commonality with partner nations, improve interoperability and simplify the inventory of maritime offensive capabilities.

Interesting above, as the only "existing class" to retrofit to is Type 45.

On current plans, the transition into service of Type 31 and Type 26 to replace Type 23s will not introduce any capability gaps.

We are seeking to increase the number of ships fitted with Mk 41 launchers beyond the Type 26, including Type 31 and potential retrofit to existing classes, to provide commonality with partner nations, improve interoperability and simplify the inventory of maritime offensive capabilities. Finally, concept and assessment phases for the Type 32 frigate and Future Air Defence System have commenced, or are about to commence, and this too will examine the benefits of a common launcher.

Second time using the term Future Air Defence System, though Type 83 is also used interchangeably.

Many other bits relevant to other threads, ranging from MROSS, to FC/ASW, F-35B and SSNs.

Yeah and I'm exploring the possibility of buying a Ferrari. I'll believe MK41 on T45 and T31 when I see it