UK Defence Forum

The French Navy in 2019 changed its naval nomenclature to split all surface ships into three main categories:

- Combatants with strong offensive capabilities (inc CVNs, LHDs, LPDs and FFs)
- Ships used for patrol and surveillance missions
- Ships assigned you a specific purpose (Support & MCMs)

If the RN did the same the T31 would (and should) definitely be in the second category, along with the Rivers.

Interestingly for the significant French fleet the future ratios look to be 20:19:4

For the RN, possibly 18:13:16, assuming no MCM replacements but keeping the RFAs (but not replace Argus) and 4 Survey ships.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:

Magpie64 wrote:Forecast of RN destroyer and frigate numbers:

Nice plot!
A few comments.

1: You said this is "in service". But, for me, escorts "flying white ensign" is more important. For example, ship in trial phase will be more "ready" than ships in LIFEX or re-engine phase. Also, ship in trial needs full member of crew, while those in long-refit does not.

On this regard, T26-hull1 comes in 2025. Also, T31-hull1 comes in 2025.

2: T26 hull3 build start was planned to be "1.5 years" from hull2. (before COVID19 plan). As hull1 will surely need more time to build, I understand this means hull2 and 3 will be handed over to RN in "1.5 years drumbeat". I'm not sure, but I believe (or hope) this means (at least the original) build plan is (or was) 1.5 years drumbeat.

It has changed ? I'm not sure.

Thank you. From what I've read the first T26 and T31 hulls will indeed be in the water in 2025 but will be nowhere near ready for delivery, trials or white ensign. This is expected to be 2027. For T31 that was in the news recently as it had changed from 2025.
I've used the expected in service / commissioning year as the start date because I've used the decomm / out of service year as the end date. For same reason I've not included LIFEX or PIF etc. This not an exact science and just a forecast, so use it as a guide. If there's an emergency then ships incoming could be sped up those outgoing delayed. And of course no plan survives first contact with HM treasury ......

What's interesting is that they plan to go below 19 in total and below 8 ASW so why are those numbers so important?
And going down to only 2 GP frigates for approx. 3 years seems incredible!
Some treasury person is bound to look at that too, especially with the current crisis, in their thinking what goes down does not need to come back up.
I think we are all supporters of the RN and would love to see more ships but the reality is we don't even have the manpower for the existing ships never mind any extra. There would need to be step change improvement in pay, terms and conditions before we could seriously think of more ships.
My guess is that more cuts are coming and we are unlikely to see all 8 of the ASW T26s, the last two are likely to 're-spec'd' as the first two T45 replacements, if you look at the dates above the timing in the BAE building rate looks just about right for that. If we are lucky some of the money saved on T26 no.s 7&8 may go to a sixth T31, we've got two hopes ..............

Magpie64 wrote:My guess is that more cuts are coming and we are unlikely to see all 8 of the ASW T26s, the last two are likely to 're-spec'd' as the first two T45 replacements, if you look at the dates above the timing in the BAE building rate looks just about right for that. If we are lucky some of the money saved on T26 no.s 7&8 may go to a sixth T31, we've got two hopes ..............

CEPP needs 6 ASW T26s and CASD needs 2 - the only way to cut to 6 was to remove the SSBNs or a CVF. I’d cut the T31s first without hesitation.

Our ambition to have forward based “frigates” should be killed without new money to fund it. Personally, I would see 2-3 Venator 90s (with 12 CAMM) with an occasional CBG visit more use in the gulf than 2 T31s, 1 LSD and 4 MCMs.

Magpie64 wrote:From what I've read the first T26 and T31 hulls will indeed be in the water in 2025 but will be nowhere near ready for delivery, trails or white ensign. This is expected to be 2027. For T31 that was in the news recently as it had changed from 2025.

This is wrong and it appears lots of people on this forum are making the same mistake.

There are three dates that get confussed:
1. The "launch" date (aka in water date)
2. The date of commission / in service date
3. The IOC and first operational deployment.

The in-water or launch date occurs as a milestone during construction. The ship is still in the hands of the builders, and normally still has much fitting out work to be completed.

When the ship is finished, and builders sea trials completed, the ship will be formally be handed over to the RN. The ship's crew will have been formed and, shortly after the handover, the ship will be commissioned in to the RN. Technically the ship is then "in service".

Once commissioned, there will then be a further period of sea trials, training, defect correction, etc. For the first of class, this can often been quite a long period. At some point, the ship is deemed to have reach its initial operating capability and available to be sent on its first operational deployment.

For the first T31, the expected dates are now:
In water: 2023
Commissioned/In service: 2025
IOC / First operational deployment: 2027

For the first T26, the dates are much the same except the in water date is likely to be earlier.

The T31 programme was originally aiming for an in service date of 2023. But when contracts were signed and dates set, this was moved to a more realistic date of 2025. The IOC of 2027 was also announced when contracts were signed - many people incorrectly thought this meant a 4 year slip in the programme. In fact it was a 2 year slip, as 2023 was the old in service date and was never the old IOC date.

Magpie64 wrote:Some treasury person is bound to look at that too, especially with the current crisis, in their thinking what goes down does not need to come back up.

Don't say that on the VE Day... "V" is the the operative word.

Magpie64 wrote:we are unlikely to see all 8 of the ASW T26s, the last two are likely to 're-spec'd' as the first two T45 replacements

Indeed.

Quote did not work, but anyway [ADD "_"]
Interestingly for the significant French fleet the future ratios look to be 20:19:4

For the RN, possibly 18:13:16, assuming no MCM replacements but keeping the RFAs (but not replace Argus)
and 4 Survey ships
... where are "the boats" in this; even without the Boomers?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Magpie64 wrote:Some treasury person is bound to look at that too, especially with the current crisis, in their thinking what goes down does not need to come back up.

Don't say that on the VE Day... "V" is the the operative word.

Magpie64 wrote:we are unlikely to see all 8 of the ASW T26s, the last two are likely to 're-spec'd' as the first two T45 replacements

Indeed.

Quote did not work, but anyway [ADD "_"]
Interestingly for the significant French fleet the future ratios look to be 20:19:4

For the RN, possibly 18:13:16, assuming no MCM replacements but keeping the RFAs (but not replace Argus)
and 4 Survey ships
... where are "the boats" in this; even without the Boomers?

Surely 6 ASW frigates isn't sufficient?

Aethulwulf wrote:1. The "launch" date (aka in water date)
2. The date of commission / in service date
3. The IOC and first operational deployment.

Thanks. I understand that, item-2 shall be tagged "handed over" rather than "commission"? Also, I understand "handing over" is different from in service date.

I heard commission is rather ceremonial. And after "hand over" the ship flies white ensign; NuShip Tamar becomes HMS Tamar, for example.

Looking at articles *A and *B, as listed below, there are
1. "in water" date
2. "handed over" date
3. "commissioning" date (= in service date?)
4. Initial Operational Capability date
5. Full Operational Capability date

Note that the ship is named "HMS" at item-2. The ship crew starts forming BETWEEN item-1 and 2. And, after item-2, the ship is fully manned. As RN is currently in short of crew and not hulls, item-2 defines the number of escorts (= RN need to disband a T23 to "be handed over" one T26).

*A; On Type-26: 12/Dec/2018 article: "https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/buildi ... 6-frigate/"
The float-out date has not yet been fixed, but is expected to be in the last quarter of 2021. ...
"The schedule announced to Parliament earlier this year calls for HMS Glasgow to be accepted by the Royal Navy in the Summer of 2025 then conduct 18 months of trials and work up, before becoming fully operational by 2027.

*B: On Type-31 "https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/steel-t ... next-year/"
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“Yes, on current plans the steel will be cut for the first of the five Type 31 Frigates in 2021...The first Type 31 Frigate will be in the water in 2023 and all five ships will be delivered by the end of 2028. The approved in service date for the first Type 31 is May 2027. The dates for Initial Operating Capability and Full Operating Capability have not yet been determined.”

dmereifield wrote:Surely 6 ASW frigates isn't sufficient?

Calls for a (new?) bag of tricks, for sure.
SSNs are v expensive and therefore will continue to be few.
P-8 fleet comes in at the (later, lower) cost of two T-26s (but without adding to a/c numbers perhaps GIUK gap can be covered, whereas tasking out to the Barents Sea would extend the fleet too thin)
The planned numbers of T-31s come at the same cost, but I doubt the value (beyond littoral ASW, where active pinging takes away the benefits of v expensive silencing)
... no wonder the navy is looking into unmanned subs; if the price is right - will it ever be - they can act in pairs one pinging and the other "stalking". And in a 'global navy' we might have to bring the submarine tender back at extra cost to what the subs themselves would come at

Sure, a Merlin is 'a flying frigate' but not a very persistent one; so only the MTF with a carrier will have sufficient numbers for continuous coverage when threat is judged 'high'

ArmChairCivvy wrote:where are "the boats" in this; even without the Boomers?

the categories were only for surface ships only.

dmereifield wrote:Surely 6 ASW frigates isn't sufficient?

they aren’t. As per my comment above, you’d either need to drop CASD or a carrier. Also, people are getting confused - the RN needs about 3 deployed ASW frigates, that means 8 (or 9), the other 5 will be in refit/port or training, you can manage smaller numbers for a short period of time, but not ideal.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:bring the submarine tender back

We have SD Northern River.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The planned numbers of T-31s come at the same cost, but I doubt the value (beyond littoral ASW, where active pinging takes away the benefits of v expensive silencing)

Agreed and you don’t need a £300mn ship to do this - there are already a number of small manned patrol boats / USuVs that can do Littoral ASW and would be better operated from shore, or from a LPD dock / T26 mission bay.

By littoral asw I take it you mean looking for conventional ssk submarines?

SW1 wrote:By littoral asw I take it you mean looking for conventional ssk submarines?

Edit: completely misread the quote - sorry

SW1 wrote:By littoral asw I take it you mean looking for conventional ssk submarines?

The most likely target (along with the oft-forgotten "small surface target")- there are a lot more of them around than SSNs, and I would have thought that it would be far less likely that an SSN would be risked in shallow waters.

The significant part about litoral waters is that they are shallow (< 200m), too shallow for the deeper thermoclines (between 200 and 350m, depending on surface mixing) that SSNs like to hide under (though you get some "interesting" layering around fresh water inflows and complex salinity changes), constricted (more difficult to operate towed arrays), dirty (suspended sand and other debris etc. due to wave action) and noisy (also wave action). Passive sonar has major problems in that environment (so does active, but less so, as you can alter your ping to get better results and overall have stronger signals to work with).

Sorry - I'm sure most of you already know this stuff, but it doen't hurt to refresh one's memory occasionally

Aethulwulf wrote:

Magpie64 wrote:From what I've read the first T26 and T31 hulls will indeed be in the water in 2025 but will be nowhere near ready for delivery, trails or white ensign. This is expected to be 2027. For T31 that was in the news recently as it had changed from 2025.

This is wrong and it appears lots of people on this forum are making the same mistake.

There are three dates that get confussed:
1. The "launch" date (aka in water date)
2. The date of commission / in service date
3. The IOC and first operational deployment.

The in-water or launch date occurs as a milestone during construction. The ship is still in the hands of the builders, and normally still has much fitting out work to be completed.

When the ship is finished, and builders sea trials completed, the ship will be formally be handed over to the RN. The ship's crew will have been formed and, shortly after the handover, the ship will be commissioned in to the RN. Technically the ship is then "in service".

Once commissioned, there will then be a further period of sea trials, training, defect correction, etc. For the first of class, this can often been quite a long period. At some point, the ship is deemed to have reach its initial operating capability and available to be sent on its first operational deployment.

For the first T31, the expected dates are now:
In water: 2023
Commissioned/In service: 2025
IOC / First operational deployment: 2027

For the first T26, the dates are much the same except the in water date is likely to be earlier.

The T31 programme was originally aiming for an in service date of 2023. But when contracts were signed and dates set, this was moved to a more realistic date of 2025. The IOC of 2027 was also announced when contracts were signed - many people incorrectly thought this meant a 4 year slip in the programme. In fact it was a 2 year slip, as 2023 was the old in service date and was never the old IOC date.

Ok thanks. This is the article with T26 and T31 in service dates of 2027 that I based my table graphic on. Is this now incorrect? Or as you’ve described just the exact definition of the term ‘in service’ ? I was taking it as commissioning so have I got that wrong? What year would commissioning likely be?
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/only-s ... w-frigate/

Caribbean wrote:

SW1 wrote:By littoral asw I take it you mean looking for conventional ssk submarines?

The most likely target (along with the oft-forgotten "small surface target")- there are a lot more of them around than SSNs, and I would have thought that it would be far less likely that an SSN would be risked in shallow waters.

The significant part about litoral waters is that they are shallow (< 200m), too shallow for the deeper thermoclines (between 200 and 350m, depending on surface mixing) that SSNs like to hide under (though you get some "interesting" layering around fresh water inflows and complex salinity changes), constricted (more difficult to operate towed arrays), dirty (suspended sand and other debris etc. due to wave action) and noisy (also wave action). Passive sonar has major problems in that environment (so does active, but less so, as you can alter your ping to get better results and overall have stronger signals to work with).

Sorry - I'm sure most of you already know this stuff, but it doen't hurt to refresh one's memory occasionally

This was kind of my thinking there is quite significantly more ssk arounds than ssn’s and even russia invested and has more of them than ssns.

So would you not be looking at adding more active systems as there more threats to counter which doesn’t require quite as many constraints as a passive listening system

SW1 wrote:So would you not be looking at adding more active systems as there more threats to counter which doesn’t require quite as many constraints as a passive listening system

Yes - you would. Which is why I get somewhat impatient with the "if it hasn't got a tail, it's not a real frigate" brigade. ASW comes in a number of flavours, all of which have their uses in the right circumstances.

Caribbean wrote:Yes - you would. Which is why I get somewhat impatient with the "if it hasn't got a tail, it's not a real frigate" brigade. ASW comes in a number of flavours, all of which have their uses in the right circumstances.

Agree, but this is where I get impatient with “that for it to be a ASW ship it has to be a frigate” brigade. I get the T26; a key part of its role will be blue water ASW to protect the CBG in combination with a SSN, but it also has significant war fighting ASuW and AAW capabilities also. I can also see that if operating in north part of the Norwegian Sea or Barents Sea, the risk level would require a T26 (hence why I think we need a couple more).

Littoral ASW and blue water “active pinging” can be done with anything from sonar buoys, MPAs, drones and more simple patrol ships - it does not need a costly T31 paper frigate.

Repulse wrote:I can also see that if operating in north part of the Norwegian Sea or Barents Sea, the risk level would require a T26 (hence why I think we need a couple more).

what dose a type 26 have that makes it the only frigate we can send ?

Tempest414 wrote:what dose a type 26 have that makes it the only frigate we can send ?

Full spectrum of ASW, AAW, ASuW weapons and countermeasures plus hull quietening/stealth. Only even a few of these exist (and will only exist for the RN) even in a glossy T31 sales brochure. To operate in the Barents Sea needs a SSN, a world class ASW ship (a.k.a. T26) or a full blown CBG.

Again, we are where we are and the T31 will happen - but we shouldn’t kid ourselves it will replace a single T26 or be the future MHC mothership that is needed.

Repulse wrote:Full spectrum of ASW, AAW, ASuW weapons and countermeasures plus hull quietening/stealth.

A full spectrum ? I agree type 26 will always be a better ASW platform however when it comes to AAW and ASuW it is only a matter of fitting and money i.e type 26 will have 48 CAMM plus 24 VLS if the money was there type 31 could be fitted with 36 CAMM and 16 SSGW's quite quickly

But lets also not kid our self that a batch 2 River or any form of can be upgraded to any level of frigate

Repulse wrote:I get impatient with “that for it to be a ASW ship it has to be a frigate” brigade.

plus

Repulse wrote:Littoral ASW and blue water “active pinging” can be done with anything

I agree (within limits). BAE are developing autonomous offboard systems based on the Pacific 950 and 24 RHIB form-factors, which pretty much all RN platforms (including the T31) would be able to deploy. ARCIMS is larger, but still deployable by a number of vessels (including the T26). Only an MCM variant at the moment, but I believe that ASW is coming (the Elbit Seagull is a nother example in approximately the samne size range).

The T26 remains the bluewater, passive sonar specialist, but active sonar is now becoming a "remote" asset in the same way as helicopers using sonar buouys and dipping sonar have been for some time. Slower than helicopters, but still faster than a submerged submarine and more persistent than a helicopter. Add in the capability to carry and launch even a single LWT and we have a modern unmanned "sub-chaser".

Repulse wrote: the T31 will happen - but we shouldn’t kid ourselves it will replace a single T26

It's not intended to. It'll replace the T23GPs. Which do a lot of other things than littoral ASW - as the T31 will.

Tempest414 wrote:A full spectrum ? I agree type 26 will always be a better ASW platform however when it comes to AAW and ASuW it is only a matter of fitting and money i.e type 26 will have 48 CAMM plus 24 VLS if the money was there type 31 could be fitted with 36 CAMM and 16 SSGW's quite quickly

Not sure what you mean. We must compare T26 "as is" and T31 "as is".

A T31 has 12 CAMM, 1x 57 mm gun, 2x 40 mm gun, and that's all.

If you are talking about up-armed T31, the T26 itself could be up-armed, as well. Like, Australian Hunter-class version or even more.

But lets also not kid our self that a batch 2 River or any form of can be upgraded to any level of frigate

Good point. But, it all depends on what you mean as a "frigate".
- Can up-armed River B2 fully cover the T31 ("as is") capability? --> of course not. Helicopter, hull-standard (damage control), speed and range. These parts cannot be comparable, even if we up-arm River B2 as much as possible.
- Can up-armed River B2 cover the T31's tasks --> 80% of it will be doable. For example, "12 CAMM and a 57 mm gun" can be carried on River B2 if heavily unarmed. But, it will require land-based air-cover (no helicopter), and a forward base or AOR near her (shorter range and less sea-keeping).

Tempest414 wrote:But lets also not kid our self that a batch 2 River or any form of can be upgraded to any level of frigate

I’ve never thought that - what I see is a solid role for a MHPC which “could” be based on the River class. It’s role would be a MCM, Surveying, Surveillance and I’d add ASW (for the “active ping” topic above) drone mothership, with just enough weapons / counter measures to operate in a low to medium threat environment.

Repulse wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:what dose a type 26 have that makes it the only frigate we can send ?

Full spectrum of ASW, AAW, ASuW weapons and countermeasures plus hull quietening/stealth. Only even a few of these exist (and will only exist for the RN) even in a glossy T31 sales brochure. To operate in the Barents Sea needs a SSN, a world class ASW ship (a.k.a. T26) or a full blown CBG.

Again, we are where we are and the T31 will happen - but we shouldn’t kid ourselves it will replace a single T26 or be the future MHC mothership that is needed.

Think a T26 operating independently in Barents Sea has only marginal higher chance of surviving air attack than an OPV from Russian a/c squadron with anti-ship missiles that could just stand-off out of range of Sea Ceptor and co-ordinate mass attack. The T26 only has the short range 25 km/13.5 nm Sea Ceptor missiles, which as yet have never been tested against Mach 0.9 targets let alone supersonic ones, if it does operate per the brochure what will the hit rate be, Israelis claiming 80-90% success against small rockets from Gaza with Iron Dome, claim met with a lot of scepticism.

Caribbean wrote:It's not intended to. It'll replace the T23GPs. Which do a lot of other things than littoral ASW - as the T31 will.

I’m sure the T31 can do the global forward based bit - question is whether we can afford it or should prioritise it without further funding. As I say the five are ordered, but unless it’s going to take on more than the GP frigate role then 5 is where it should stop.