Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3858
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 64 times
Been liked: 231 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 20:29
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 16:05 I'm not saying T31 is an ideal asset. Just saying T31 can actually do something, contribute to UK.
Absolutely, lots of potential but will it be realised.

For example,

T31 is commissioned with 24 CAMM plus 57mm/40mm and NS100. It’s about as basic as it gets. What if each T31 is also FFBNW up to 16 NSM? Very little changes in terms of operating cost or crew size, it’s just insurance for a rainy day.

Also, each T31 can embark up to two Wildcats. A pair of T31s armed with 32 NSM and embarking 3 or 4 Wildcats is a real strategic headache for an adversary, especially if operating in conjunction with P8s or an SSN.

Suddenly the T31 becomes a massive force multiplier for RN.
We can take this one step further if Type 31 were to get the Mk-41 like the 1st SL has nodded at then we could have a pair of T31's with 16 x NSM , 16 to 32 x Tomahawk Blk-V and 3 to 4 helicopters this would give the ship an attack range of 1000 miles 360 degree around the ship or to put it another way the ships could cover 3 million square miles or area

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2341
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 79 times
Been liked: 115 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 09:22 We can take this one step further if Type 31 were to get the Mk-41 like the 1st SL has nodded at then we could have a pair of T31's with 16 x NSM , 16 to 32 x Tomahawk Blk-V and 3 to 4 helicopters this would give the ship an attack range of 1000 miles 360 degree around the ship or to put it another way the ships could cover 3 million square miles or area
Thats the ultimate realisation of what the T31 COULD be but in all likelihood never will.

The politicians answer will be; we can upgrade them when the threat level increases. Unfortunately history shows that there will be little time to upgrade anything unless previous foresight included systems FFBNW. Perhaps it could be argued that the NSM decision is an example of an extra capability being applied due to the obvious increase in threat level. Conversely it could be argued that allowing a gap to occur when the Harpoon became obsolescent was unwise or even negligent. Regardless, the correct decision has been arrived at in the end which is the most important outcome.

Looking at overall fleet balance within the next 10 years it’s clear that all RN surface offensive capability will contained within the CSG and SSNs. I would suggest a broader offensive capacity is required.

On current planning all 10 of the T31 and T32 Frigate classes will have no OTH offensive capabilities apart from the embarked helo. For a navy with such low escort numbers, that’s crazy. Adding the NSM to T31/T32 FFBNW seems eminently prudent.

If it is a question of limited resources is it really sensible to add all of your surface launched Anti-ship and Land-attack capabilities to the CSG escorts? I would suggest not for two reasons.

1. Much of the effective range of the missiles will be negated by keeping the CSG so far out of harms way, why add them to the T45s with so much offensive capability on the CVF?

2. The primary tasking for the T23 ASWs and T26s is CSG escort and TAPS. Are these hulls really the best place to locate ALL of RN’s surface launched Anti-ship and Land-attack capability?

Perhaps the compromise is to split the NSM capability between the T26s and the T32s and add then change FFBNW to FFBNRC (Fitted For But Not Routinely Carried) for the both the T45s and T31s.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3858
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 64 times
Been liked: 231 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 14:30
Tempest414 wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 09:22 We can take this one step further if Type 31 were to get the Mk-41 like the 1st SL has nodded at then we could have a pair of T31's with 16 x NSM , 16 to 32 x Tomahawk Blk-V and 3 to 4 helicopters this would give the ship an attack range of 1000 miles 360 degree around the ship or to put it another way the ships could cover 3 million square miles or area
Thats the ultimate realisation of what the T31 COULD be but in all likelihood never will.

The politicians answer will be; we can upgrade them when the threat level increases. Unfortunately history shows that there will be little time to upgrade anything unless previous foresight included systems FFBNW. Perhaps it could be argued that the NSM decision is an example of an extra capability being applied due to the obvious increase in threat level. Conversely it could be argued that allowing a gap to occur when the Harpoon became obsolescent was unwise or even negligent. Regardless, the correct decision has been arrived at in the end which is the most important outcome.

Looking at overall fleet balance within the next 10 years it’s clear that all RN surface offensive capability will contained within the CSG and SSNs. I would suggest a broader offensive capacity is required.

On current planning all 10 of the T31 and T32 Frigate classes will have no OTH offensive capabilities apart from the embarked helo. For a navy with such low escort numbers, that’s crazy. Adding the NSM to T31/T32 FFBNW seems eminently prudent.

If it is a question of limited resources is it really sensible to add all of your surface launched Anti-ship and Land-attack capabilities to the CSG escorts? I would suggest not for two reasons.

1. Much of the effective range of the missiles will be negated by keeping the CSG so far out of harms way, why add them to the T45s with so much offensive capability on the CVF?

2. The primary tasking for the T23 ASWs and T26s is CSG escort and TAPS. Are these hulls really the best place to locate ALL of RN’s surface launched Anti-ship and Land-attack capability?

Perhaps the compromise is to split the NSM capability between the T26s and the T32s and add then change FFBNW to FFBNRC (Fitted For But Not Routinely Carried) for the both the T45s and T31s.
For me given that Type 26 will have 24 strike length VLS we should be looking to fit NSM on Type 45 and Type 31 with Type 26 getting FC/ASW or Tomahawk as a stop gap this would give all three classes an OTH capability and the CSG another option

When it comes to Type 32 we will wait and see what comes before thinking about NSM

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6463
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 52 times
Been liked: 34 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 16:05 Sorry, it was not clear for me. For example, ships cannot fly. Is it a problem? No. Mine avoidance sonar are sometimes added to escorts, but I believe it is not always. Mine avoidance sonar is specialized high-frequency sonar, very different from ASW sonar. Japanese Mogami class has a mine-avoidance sonar and TASS. I'm not sure T45 and T23 has mine avoidance capability. I've read some report on torpedo alert capability, though.
Not sure what flying warships have to do with anything but I seem to remember the case for the T45 being equipped with an HMS was mine avoidance. I wouldn't be surprised if I am wrong.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 16:05 For T31, being there is the key, because it is there to "patrol" the area. Lack of ASM is not good, but I do not think it is critical, because the Wildcat can carry 4 SeaVenoms.
I don't know the military value of a "patrolling" frigate that can do no harm to the bad guys and hardly defend itself.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 16:05 But, T31 is the smallest/cheapest asset RN can send with a good enough helicopter assets. From BMT report, any ships with length shorter than 110-120 m has significant helicopter availability limitations. Requirement of T31 to have a length longer than 120m comes from there.

I'm not saying T31 is an ideal asset. Just saying T31 can actually do something, contribute to UK.
An asset that can only adequately perform anti-FAC but will require defending against other enemy action is pretty useless in any military context.

Look, I get that the RN welcomes the T31's because they're big enough that capabilities can be added over time that could make them useful assets. I'm sure justifying additions to an existing class is a lot easier than justifying a whole new warship.

I get that the RN likes having two big carriers even if the funding was never in place to give them an adequate number of fast jets to operate (the reason for the ship's existence) because one day, they might have enough.

But it's a piss poor way to run defense: putting inadequate kit into service in the hope that it won't be needed before there's time to rectify the inadequacies. Seems a rather good way to get a lot of service folks get killed in the meantime. It's a political package of nonsense served up by both UK parties and no one of any significance seems to be around to shout out that the emperor has no clothes.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
serge750

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6463
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 52 times
Been liked: 34 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Phil Sayers wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 19:02 On the assumption that the NSM sets for T-23 will later move over to T-31 (and frankly it would be madness not to so that must be the plan) this really is s significant upgrade to their capability. My main concern about the plan to have land-attack handled by T-26 down the line was that T-26 would either be doing ASW work far from any land targets or else would be escorting a carrier group that already has formidable land-attack capability in the form of its aircraft - simply not enough T-26 to go around for much in the way of solo deployments. In contrast the plan was to have T-31 operating in exactly the theatres where we might wish to be conducting strikes at short notice but without any ability to actually strike.

Precision land-attack at over 100 miles range goes a long, long way to alleviating that concern and a credible anti-shipping capability is also highly welcome. Delighted at this news.
Surely land attack missiles would be very useful to a CSG in degrading enemy defenses (SEAD/DEAD) before the F-35's go in? In fact wouldn't that be SOP for any aircraft attack anywhere these days?

The ship has sailed on the T45's having any Mk 41's for such missiles, so that only leaves the T26 and land attack seems to have been the reason for its Mk 41's since day 1.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6463
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 52 times
Been liked: 34 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 14:30 Looking at overall fleet balance within the next 10 years it’s clear that all RN surface offensive capability will contained within the CSG and SSNs.
That's the stated RN plan. A Navy centered around its two carriers. I'm not sure diluting that plan is such a great idea.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6463
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 52 times
Been liked: 34 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 15:06 For me given that Type 26 will have 24 strike length VLS we should be looking to fit NSM on Type 45 and Type 31 with Type 26 getting FC/ASW
Seems obvious that this is the RN plan.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3858
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 64 times
Been liked: 231 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 16:36
Tempest414 wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 15:06 For me given that Type 26 will have 24 strike length VLS we should be looking to fit NSM on Type 45 and Type 31 with Type 26 getting FC/ASW
Seems obvious that this is the RN plan.
Seems obvious but will it workout that way

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 70 times

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

Ron5 wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 16:30
Surely land attack missiles would be very useful to a CSG in degrading enemy defenses (SEAD/DEAD) before the F-35's go in? In fact wouldn't that be SOP for any aircraft attack anywhere these days?
Sure, I don't disagree that having land attack missiles as part of the carrier group is very useful and in some situations would be essential. I just think it is much better to have a more distributed across the fleet way of conducting land attack rather than basically being a case of either full-blown carrier group present or no option for land attack at all (if / when TLAM can't be fired from subs).
These users liked the author Phil Sayers for the post:
Poiuytrewq

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3668
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 136 times
Been liked: 331 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I think it ignores the fact that the carrier groups offensive weapons are basically a 500lb free fall bomb and that’s how it will remain for a number of years. So adding modern anti ship/ land attack missiles to the escorts is overdue.

If we have to keep a csg way out of harms way it’s a self licking lollipop.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2341
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 79 times
Been liked: 115 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 19:00 I think it ignores the fact that the carrier groups offensive weapons are basically a 500lb free fall bomb and that’s how it will remain for a number of years. So adding modern anti ship/ land attack missiles to the escorts is overdue.
Adding a NSM capability to the T31/T32 won’t reduce the strike capacity of the CSG it simply gives RN more options. No reason why a NSM armed T31 can’t join the CSG.
If we have to keep a csg way out of harms way it’s a self licking lollipop.
In the modern era how likely is it that a CSG is going to get within 80nm to 100nm from a hostile coast? And how likely is it that the hostile coastline will contain Anti-Ship missiles with a greater range than 100nm?

The NSM has a land attack capability but unless the vessel carrying it gets within 60nm to 80nm of the coast it’s really just a Littoral Strike Missile.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3668
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 136 times
Been liked: 331 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 19:49
SW1 wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 19:00 I think it ignores the fact that the carrier groups offensive weapons are basically a 500lb free fall bomb and that’s how it will remain for a number of years. So adding modern anti ship/ land attack missiles to the escorts is overdue.
Adding a NSM capability to the T31/T32 won’t reduce the strike capacity of the CSG it simply gives RN more options. No reason why a NSM armed T31 can’t join the CSG.
If we have to keep a csg way out of harms way it’s a self licking lollipop.
In the modern era how likely is it that a CSG is going to get within 80nm to 100nm from a hostile coast? And how likely is it that the hostile coastline will contain Anti-Ship missiles with a greater range than 100nm?

The NSM has a land attack capability but unless the vessel carrying it gets within 60nm to 80nm of the coast it’s really just a Littoral Strike Missile.
I only think the type 31/26 weren’t mentioned in the press release because they won’t be in service for a number of years yet. It was an emphasis on getting them in next year to replace harpoon. They will be across the fleet, temporary has habit of becoming permanent. The surface fleet hasn’t had such a capable missile probably ever. NSM and camm offer great opportunities going fwd.

Well it won’t be going in the gulf nor Baltic for example then. Nor will it be contributing much to land campaigns if you’re keeping the group it that far away all the time. But you question alludes to a bigger strategic point we are ignoring it’s much better to defend territory than have to retake it. The old 3 to 1 ratio required to take land is probably no longer valid, thanks to proliferating tech it is much bigger now maybe 5/6 to 1. I doubt the political will is there to play those odds so perhaps our posture needs to change to reflect it.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3858
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 64 times
Been liked: 231 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I would agree in part that for the next five years type 23 and 45 are going to be the only escorts we will have

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3261
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 162 times
Been liked: 212 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 21:21 … But you question alludes to a bigger strategic point we are ignoring it’s much better to defend territory than have to retake it. The old 3 to 1 ratio required to take land is probably no longer valid, thanks to proliferating tech it is much bigger now maybe 5/6 to 1. I doubt the political will is there to play those odds so perhaps our posture needs to change to reflect it…
Absolutely, it has been this way probably for the West since 2010 and Iraq/Afghanistan, and now Russia will be less gun-ho also.

This doesn’t mean that the UK or others will not focus on offensive capabilities, but more around surgical strike or general disruption and denial of services to pressure a country to submission (see recent Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure). In parallel the worldwide “grey” war of misinformation, destabilisation and actions below the threshold of a hot war will continue and actually increase.

I’d personally say with the FCF, Rangers, RAF Predators and multi role Carrier groups with significant OTH capabilities the UK is already reposting towards this. NSM is another example of this.

The way the UK defends against this and also protects its interests in the shadow war with Russia, China and even other emerging competitors will be key. It needs to be a broad spectrum of conventional and new capabilities, and yes we need to look at where our faith in tanks, frigates and fighter jets are no longer the right tools to defend ourselves. Light land forces, OPVs/RFAs and long range / carrier capable drones should be front and centre of our defence.

Lastly though we do need to retain the ability to fight and regain territory. It could be through seedcorn capabilities that can be rebuilt when needed, but a strong but small high end core can have be a significant deterrent and also fight limited Falklands like conflicts.
”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: 3668
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 136 times
Been liked: 331 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 08:05
SW1 wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 21:21 … But you question alludes to a bigger strategic point we are ignoring it’s much better to defend territory than have to retake it. The old 3 to 1 ratio required to take land is probably no longer valid, thanks to proliferating tech it is much bigger now maybe 5/6 to 1. I doubt the political will is there to play those odds so perhaps our posture needs to change to reflect it…
Absolutely, it has been this way probably for the West since 2010 and Iraq/Afghanistan, and now Russia will be less gun-ho also.

This doesn’t mean that the UK or others will not focus on offensive capabilities, but more around surgical strike or general disruption and denial of services to pressure a country to submission (see recent Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure). In parallel the worldwide “grey” war of misinformation, destabilisation and actions below the threshold of a hot war will continue and actually increase.

I’d personally say with the FCF, Rangers, RAF Predators and multi role Carrier groups with significant OTH capabilities the UK is already reposting towards this. NSM is another example of this.

The way the UK defends against this and also protects its interests in the shadow war with Russia, China and even other emerging competitors will be key. It needs to be a broad spectrum of conventional and new capabilities, and yes we need to look at where our faith in tanks, frigates and fighter jets are no longer the right tools to defend ourselves. Light land forces, OPVs/RFAs and long range / carrier capable drones should be front and centre of our defence.

Lastly though we do need to retain the ability to fight and regain territory. It could be through seedcorn capabilities that can be rebuilt when needed, but a strong but small high end core can have be a significant deterrent and also fight limited Falklands like conflicts.
I think the first part of it is largely political. They need to be willing to act on intelligence much earlier. If you go from the Falkland to Gulf to Ukraine wars the intelligence was there to tell us what was happening. We removed endurance rather than strengthening the garrison in the lead up to the Falklands.

The emir of Kuwait stood dwn his armed forces prior to Iraq’s invasion and we knew what putin was planning in Ukraine for months.

At each step had the political will been there sometimes on both our allies side and ours, deploying desert shield to Kuwait would have stopped Iraq’s invasion and something similar into Ukraine would have stopped putin.

The military issue, is the we must have enough contingency to be able to deploy up to medium scale operation quickly with forces able to defend our or allies territory. Less show boating less spreading ourselves too thin. Logistics and stock levels take on a greater importance as a result.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3261
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 162 times
Been liked: 212 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I do agree, but “spreading thinly” is going to be a fine balance. As you say by withdrawing HMS Endurance from the Falklands was of limited military benefit, but it did signal that the UK was no longer interested and therefore Argentina saw their chance.

When we talk about spreading ourselves thinly I see it’s a conversation of where we focus our money not where we necessarily have units. That’s why I push the whole B2 River vs T31 so hard. B2s are relatively cheap but does show both intent and also provides a level of engagement and intelligence. T31s are more relatively capable but comes at a much higher cost which is better focused IMO towards the war fighting capabilities and depth to sustain operations you are talking about.
”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: 3858
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 64 times
Been liked: 231 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 08:05
SW1 wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 21:21 … But you question alludes to a bigger strategic point we are ignoring it’s much better to defend territory than have to retake it. The old 3 to 1 ratio required to take land is probably no longer valid, thanks to proliferating tech it is much bigger now maybe 5/6 to 1. I doubt the political will is there to play those odds so perhaps our posture needs to change to reflect it…
Absolutely, it has been this way probably for the West since 2010 and Iraq/Afghanistan, and now Russia will be less gun-ho also.

This doesn’t mean that the UK or others will not focus on offensive capabilities, but more around surgical strike or general disruption and denial of services to pressure a country to submission (see recent Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure). In parallel the worldwide “grey” war of misinformation, destabilisation and actions below the threshold of a hot war will continue and actually increase.

I’d personally say with the FCF, Rangers, RAF Predators and multi role Carrier groups with significant OTH capabilities the UK is already reposting towards this. NSM is another example of this.

The way the UK defends against this and also protects its interests in the shadow war with Russia, China and even other emerging competitors will be key. It needs to be a broad spectrum of conventional and new capabilities, and yes we need to look at where our faith in tanks, frigates and fighter jets are no longer the right tools to defend ourselves. Light land forces, OPVs/RFAs and long range / carrier capable drones should be front and centre of our defence.

Lastly though we do need to retain the ability to fight and regain territory. It could be through seedcorn capabilities that can be rebuilt when needed, but a strong but small high end core can have be a significant deterrent and also fight limited Falklands like conflicts.
The ability to fight in the modern age means you have to have the Kit needed up front i.e heavy Land forces ,Fighter jets , Frigates Destroyers Carriers and SSN's

However I do agree that the FCF , Rangers , SF will play a big part in the grey war as will Light mechanised infantry units as seen in Mali and the Long range patrol group

For me as said cross other threads we need the a 2 part navy part one ( High end ) CSG , SSBN , SSN part two ( Low end) 8 x Type 31 , 8 x RB2's & 6 flattop MRSS. We also need the UK 1st division to be made up of 3 Light Mechanised Brigades newly equipped with Bushmaster

I still believe that as the grey war enter the next stage we will need to split the low end part of the navy like so

4 x Type 31 , 4 x RB2's & 4 x MRSS Atlantic
4 x Type 31 , 4 x RB2's & 2 x MRSS Indo-Pacific & Gulf

this will allow the RN to patrol and work with Navies down both sides of Africa , South America , the North Atlantic and the Pacific

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3261
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 162 times
Been liked: 212 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 09:39 The ability to fight in the modern age means you have to have the Kit needed up front i.e heavy Land forces ,Fighter jets , Frigates Destroyers Carriers and SSN's
Yes you do, but not necessarily at the scale that people think of when they use the past as a benchmark. Speed and logistics are absolute enablers and multipliers. As Ukraine shows that when you don’t have these even overwhelming heavy forces can be countered by lesser forces. Disrupting the enemies speed and logistics though conventional and unconventional means are key war fighting capabilities that need to be balanced with armoured units.
Tempest414 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 09:39 I still believe that as the grey war enter the next stage we will need to split the low end part of the navy like so

4 x Type 31 , 4 x RB2's & 4 x MRSS Atlantic
4 x Type 31 , 4 x RB2's & 2 x MRSS Indo-Pacific & Gulf

this will allow the RN to patrol and work with Navies down both sides of Africa , South America , the North Atlantic and the Pacific
Absolutely not. Outside of Kipion then the Indo Pacific region we should spend limited money on forward deployed forces - e.g. a couple of OPVs and a multi role RFA. Equally a similar force in the mid and south Atlantic is sufficient.

The money needs to go into the core agile war fighting forces and unconventional capabilities that are based primarily in the UK that can quickly deployed and supported globally. These need to be regularly deployed on exercises which requires significant funds also.
”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: 3858
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 64 times
Been liked: 231 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 12:11
Tempest414 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 09:39 The ability to fight in the modern age means you have to have the Kit needed up front i.e heavy Land forces ,Fighter jets , Frigates Destroyers Carriers and SSN's
Yes you do, but not necessarily at the scale that people think of when they use the past as a benchmark. Speed and logistics are absolute enablers and multipliers. As Ukraine shows that when you don’t have these even overwhelming heavy forces can be countered by lesser forces. Disrupting the enemies speed and logistics though conventional and unconventional means are key war fighting capabilities that need to be balanced with armoured units.
Tempest414 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 09:39 I still believe that as the grey war enter the next stage we will need to split the low end part of the navy like so

4 x Type 31 , 4 x RB2's & 4 x MRSS Atlantic
4 x Type 31 , 4 x RB2's & 2 x MRSS Indo-Pacific & Gulf

this will allow the RN to patrol and work with Navies down both sides of Africa , South America , the North Atlantic and the Pacific
Absolutely not. Outside of Kipion then the Indo Pacific region we should spend limited money on forward deployed forces - e.g. a couple of OPVs and a multi role RFA. Equally a similar force in the mid and south Atlantic is sufficient.

The money needs to go into the core agile war fighting forces and unconventional capabilities that are based primarily in the UK that can quickly deployed and supported globally. These need to be regularly deployed on exercises which requires significant funds also.
we both have strong views on this but with 8 ships full time deployed today and the OPV's being replaced by Type 31 we will just have to wait and see who is right a lot will depend on weather Type 32 comes on line or not down the road

Also East and West Africa will become a big play ground now the Chinese are looking for bases in the regions

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6463
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 52 times
Been liked: 34 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 09:23 The military issue, is the we must have enough contingency to be able to deploy up to medium scale operation quickly with forces able to defend our or allies territory.
The case for the carriers: only they can deploy air power quickly enough.

SD67
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 95 times
Been liked: 104 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Tempest414 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 13:18
Also East and West Africa will become a big play ground now the Chinese are looking for bases in the regions
Excellent point and I think this is a very under-rated job the River Batch 2s have been doing recently - flying the flag in friendly countries which haven't seen a RN ship in decades. For a tiny investment we re-solidify relationships and maybe pre-empt some chinese moves
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 3):
RepulseCaribbeanwargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3668
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 136 times
Been liked: 331 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 14:28
SW1 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 09:23 The military issue, is the we must have enough contingency to be able to deploy up to medium scale operation quickly with forces able to defend our or allies territory.
The case for the carriers: only they can deploy air power quickly enough.
Emm no.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3858
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 64 times
Been liked: 231 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SD67 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 14:42
Tempest414 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 13:18
Also East and West Africa will become a big play ground now the Chinese are looking for bases in the regions
Excellent point and I think this is a very under-rated job the River Batch 2s have been doing recently - flying the flag in friendly countries which haven't seen a RN ship in decades. For a tiny investment we re-solidify relationships and maybe pre-empt some chinese moves
I agree the RB2's have been doing a great job and that is why I would build 3 more to replace the RB1's to allow

2 in the North Atlantic , 2 in the south Atlantic , 2 in the Indian Ocean and 2 in the Pacific. But I would still have 4 Type 31 EoS 1 in the Gulf , 1 in the Indian Ocean , 1 in the Pacific and 1 in dock and 4 in the Atlantic 1 AP/North , 1 in the Med and 2 Fleet ready escorts

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3261
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 162 times
Been liked: 212 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 15:31
Ron5 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 14:28
SW1 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 09:23 The military issue, is the we must have enough contingency to be able to deploy up to medium scale operation quickly with forces able to defend our or allies territory.
The case for the carriers: only they can deploy air power quickly enough.
Emm no.
The Ukraine conflict yet again has demonstrated that it doesn’t matter if you have advantage on the ground, without control of the air at best you will lose a lot of troops at worst you lose.

Having two platforms that can transport quickly and operate for long periods both fighter jets and other assets such as drones is exactly the high end, based in the UK but globally deployable forces we are talking about.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
serge750Ron5
”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: 3668
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 136 times
Been liked: 331 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 17:59
SW1 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 15:31
Ron5 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 14:28
SW1 wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 09:23 The military issue, is the we must have enough contingency to be able to deploy up to medium scale operation quickly with forces able to defend our or allies territory.
The case for the carriers: only they can deploy air power quickly enough.
Emm no.
The Ukraine conflict yet again has demonstrated that it doesn’t matter if you have advantage on the ground, without control of the air at best you will lose a lot of troops at worst you lose.

Having two platforms that can transport quickly and operate for long periods both fighter jets and other assets such as drones is exactly the high end, based in the UK but globally deployable forces we are talking about.
We had fastjets in the states, in Australia, providing combat air patrols over iraq, the Black Sea, Poland, the baltics some within hours of the Russians rolling across the border and not a single one required a damn aircraft carrier! You don’t get anymore rapidly globally deployed than that.

Ever single one however required strategic AAR aircraft and a ground team to keep them there and no one ever mentions that. The obsession to justify and myopia with 2 ships is truly incredible

Post Reply