UK Defence Forum

Repulse wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 09:30

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 08:31 With satellite surveillance, AI to scan it and significant investments in surface to surface and surface to air systems by our peer and near peer opponents we are being driven underwater for high end war fighting and deterrence.

I know people don’t like me mentioning it but it’s not carrier strike that is the future it is the submarine fleet and sea denial to our opponents.

It’s entirely dependant on build schedules and age before replacement/export strategy.

I’m also sceptical when we lurch from over focusing in one area and then the other. The Nott review was a perfect example - is still argue for a balanced fleet. Just because you control under the sea doesn’t mean that you don’t need Strike ability to hit facilities on land - sure SSNs can have ground attack capabilities but it’s very limited and when you use it you are then a target. We need SSNs, CSGs and a Multirole Overseas Patrol Squadron. Not sure we need (or can afford) separate LSGs but that will be decided by funding.

Or in another take from one area we should never of focused in to one where we should.

You aren’t sending manned aircraft to hit facilities on land anymore in high end conflict unless we are planning a return to the tactical nuclear role . You see that playing out in Ukraine now. Stand-off missiles and drones will be used.

If the targets are moving and opportunistic then you are likely to see that role being taken on by long range artillery and drones more and more.

Luckily the carriers we have will be able to operate drones as well as manned fighters.

The reality is that the threat from a SSN is invisible whereas a Carrier Strike Group is a visible statement of intent. To be credible we need both.

Repulse wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 07:28 It does though need to be able to be deployed globally.

Agreed, blue water capable and able to operate in high sea states.

One thing is now clear if the direction of the RN is to have a higher proportion of SSNs in the fleet then the surface fleet will need to be relatively small, balanced with each vessel being multi-role.

If RN agrees then there is even less reason to operate a class of below average Frigates.

… there are plenty of ships operating helicopters with a length less than 105m.

True but in what sea state can they launch and recover a helo and any flight deck on a sub 100m OPV would not be Merlin capable without drastically decreasing the sea keeping qualities if a hanger is also fitted.

The RB2 or RB3 with a 13.5m beam will not be able to install a Merlin capable hanger, it will be Wildcat only although the flight deck can be Merlin capable. To embark a Merlin a beam of 16m+ will be required.

The reason I believe vessels and their hangers will have to continue to get bigger is simply down to the amount of kit that will need to be embarked and maintained. Even embarking a Wildcat and 3 or 4 heavy lift UAVs will require a hanger of around 300sqm if maintenance clearances are required. Containerisation will help up to a point but why make the next generation of OPVs so small if it’s not absolutely necessary?

Repulse wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 10:20 Luckily the carriers we have will be able to operate drones as well as manned fighters.

The reality is that the threat from a SSN is invisible whereas a Carrier Strike Group is a visible statement of intent. To be credible we need both.

The don’t always come unseen when a message is required to be sent about intent.

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTI ... of-hormuz/

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 08:31

Repulse wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 08:14

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 08:05 I think the surface fleet will end up around mid 20s in numbers tbh

I hope you are wrong - one thing for sure is that if it is true, having two yards is a dead dream.

With satellite surveillance, AI to scan it and significant investments in surface to surface and surface to air systems by our peer and near peer opponents we are being driven underwater for high end war fighting and deterrence.

I know people don’t like me mentioning it but it’s not carrier strike that is the future it is the submarine fleet and sea denial to our opponents.

It’s entirely dependant on build schedules and age before replacement/export strategy.

No point in having control of the sea without exercising it.

People like you want a bigger RAF and bugger the other two services.

Ron5 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 13:12

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 08:31

Repulse wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 08:14

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 08:05 I think the surface fleet will end up around mid 20s in numbers tbh

I hope you are wrong - one thing for sure is that if it is true, having two yards is a dead dream.

With satellite surveillance, AI to scan it and significant investments in surface to surface and surface to air systems by our peer and near peer opponents we are being driven underwater for high end war fighting and deterrence.

I know people don’t like me mentioning it but it’s not carrier strike that is the future it is the submarine fleet and sea denial to our opponents.

It’s entirely dependant on build schedules and age before replacement/export strategy.

No point in having control of the sea without exercising it.

People like you want a bigger RAF and bugger the other two services.

Your traditional ill informed hypothesis I see.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 00:43

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑13 Mar 2023, 17:47 Apologies if I had quoted the wrong person, but I thought it was you who suggested using some of the MRSS funds to afford 3 of what you has described as 140m Support Vessel?

Absolutley.

If the combined T32 and MRSS budgets actually materialise and amount to around £5bn then that’s enough IMO to fix the surface fleet. I am just not convinced that spending that amount on the T32 and MRSS classes is the correct direction of travel.

Much better to focus on the T26 and T31 programs and especially maximise the T31 hulls plus invest in additional patrol vessels to take the strain from the escorts and Amphibs. The direction of travel with the newly refreshed IR and AUKUS appear to validate this view and any rationale for launching a class of below average Frigates is now dead.

The support vessels you mention could just as easily be named LSVs, MRVs, JLS or any number of other things. Personally I think they are best described as high capacity OPVs.

My opinion is that the RB2s are doing fine but larger more capable vessels could achieve much more. The reason they need to be around 140m is simply to allow everything to fit.

- To operate and embark a helicopter an OPV needs to be around 105m

- To add a meaningful working deck the LOA needs to increase to by 10 to 15m.

- To add a hanger suitable for multiple helos adds another 15m to 20m.

- To add a two spot flight adds another 20m to 30m depending on Chinook capability.

That’s a bit simplistic but it’s pretty close.

So if you want an OPV with a multi helo hanger, two spot flight deck and a working deck with deck crane then 140m LOA is around the minimum required.

IMO there is absolutely no need to build these OPVs like LPDs. A clever mix of mostly commercial standards is perfectly acceptable for East/West Africa and Caribbean patrol ships. They would effectively be coastguard vessels. If money was especially tight then converted commercial vessels would be acceptable much like Argus albeit on a smaller scale.

Replacing the RB1s with more 80m to 90m OPVs would be a huge missed opportunity. Much better options without spending any more money.

At the moment we don;t quite yet know how much has actually been budgeted for by RN for T32 / MRSS / River B1 replacement. That will therefore directly what could be spent if the RN changed priorities (plus the possibility of SSN-AUKUS diverting funds from the service to having more SSNs).

I can agree with much of what you suggest. For me plans for the T32 should be shelved as yet another Boris soundbite when he announed this brand new class of Frigats out of thin air. Agree 100% that these funds need to be used uparm the RN escorts:
1) Adding more CAMM to each of T45/T26/T31 (this had been anounced previously but it needs to happen ASAP if we want the RN to be able to face the Anti-Ship Missile barrages of Soviets and Chinese).
2) Adding 8*NSM Containers to every T45 and T31 in the medium term (in the short term being added to T23 until they are retired) to remedy big capability gap.
3) If T26 are going to have Mk41 VLS, then they need FCASW and or other missiles to fill their VLS - we have to mov away from FFBNW and ensure that our escorts leave port properly supplied in case tensions continue to escalate.
4) Specifically for T31 add sonar so that they can act as proper GP Frigates and cover all the missions that T23 GP previously undertook - they may not be ASW specialists like T26 but they need to still contribute.

Then agree that we don't need 6*(presumably smallish) MRSS. Am comfortable using the funds for say 3*MRSS to purchase 2*medium LPH to replace Ocean and Argus. Then if we are using the Budget for remaining 3*MRSS to buy 3*140m LSV as you described, that sounds fine.

I think Tempest mentioned that the River B2s had something like 29 military upgrades over normal commercial standards. I am not sure if he listed out what they were and how much they each cost - but I guess it is the standard cost-benefit analysis. It sounds like you were saying something similar when talking about these 140mm LSV being in between normal commercial standards or River B2 standard.

So I think the main thing might disagree with is how to spend any potential RN Budget for RB1 replacements. I still think we need some cheap OPV to cover Fishery Protection and basic patrolling of home and BOTS. I think these can definitely be an off the shelf commercial ships - the main priority is great sea keeping for the size of ship. Equipment and armanent wise could be pretty basic - as simple as 1*20mm and 2*12.7mm, 2*RIB. There should be a multitude of off te shalf designs that RN could take an use Appledore to build (or Rosyth if they have no work remaining).

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 23:20
So I think the main thing might disagree with is how to spend any potential RN Budget for RB1 replacements. I still think we need some cheap OPV to cover Fishery Protection and basic patrolling of home and BOTS. I think these can definitely be an off the shelf commercial ships - the main priority is great sea keeping for the size of ship. Equipment and armanent wise could be pretty basic - as simple as 1*20mm and 2*12.7mm, 2*RIB. There should be a multitude of off te shalf designs that RN could take an use Appledore to build (or Rosyth if they have no work remaining).

Thanks.

If three RB2s return to the UK EEZ along with the MROSS, the T31s to cover FRE and the T26s cover TAPS the UK EEZ is pretty well covered.

If one high capacity OPV is operating from the Caribbean (with helo), one high capacity OPV is operating from the West African coast (with helo) and the two RB2s are operating from Gibraltar in the north and the Falklands in the south with long range surveillance UAVs, between the four vessels it would be pretty well covered.

It would require no Frigates, Destroyers or any of the Amphib fleet allowing those assets to concentrate on priorities elsewhere.

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 13:31

Ron5 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 13:12

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 08:31

Repulse wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 08:14

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 08:05 I think the surface fleet will end up around mid 20s in numbers tbh

I hope you are wrong - one thing for sure is that if it is true, having two yards is a dead dream.

With satellite surveillance, AI to scan it and significant investments in surface to surface and surface to air systems by our peer and near peer opponents we are being driven underwater for high end war fighting and deterrence.

I know people don’t like me mentioning it but it’s not carrier strike that is the future it is the submarine fleet and sea denial to our opponents.

It’s entirely dependant on build schedules and age before replacement/export strategy.

No point in having control of the sea without exercising it.

People like you want a bigger RAF and bugger the other two services.

Your traditional ill informed hypothesis I see.

I'm afraid your institutional anti-carrier bias shines through on every occasion.

Short but a worthy overview of IR23
https://www.navylookout.com/integrated- ... me-nation/

In real terms HMG have cut defence spending again so something that is not currently under contract will have to go.

Without further funding it is very likely the T32 programme will be delayed or cancelled now. The steel should be cut in 2026 and with another Defense review due in 2025 the timeline looks incredibly tight.

Rosyth had better start looking for something else to do.

T32 is a great "Yes minister" project. Politicians can shout about it for a few years, then cancel it "without any cost" of redundancies as no physical work has started or materials ordered. Of course they ignore all the messing about and hidden costs by industry.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑17 Mar 2023, 08:59Without further funding it is very likely the T32 programme will be delayed or cancelled now. The steel should be cut in 2026 and with another Defense review due in 2025 the timeline looks incredibly tight.

Rosyth had better start looking for something else to do.

There is not need for T32 ordering now. More precisely, T32 must better be delayed for a decade, somewhere in the middle of T31 and T31 replacement. Cutting T32 is the right choice, regardless of funding is available or not. And, anyway Rosyth must look for something to build.

One MROSS(2), (up to) four MHC-LSV, one of MRSS (as Argus replacement), River B1 replacements of any kind, etc. But not T32.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑17 Mar 2023, 12:13 There is not need for T32 ordering now. More precisely, T32 must better be delayed for a decade, somewhere in the middle of T31 and T31 replacement. Cutting T32 is the right choice, regardless of funding is available or not. And, anyway Rosyth must look for something to build.

One MROSS(2), (up to) four MHC-LSV, one of MRSS (as Argus replacement), River B1 replacements of any kind, etc. But not T32.

Completely agree with that.

A few points.

- Delaying the T32s by 10 years effectively cuts the RN escort fleet by 5 hulls for a peer on peer conflict. Can this be alleviated by PODs? If not the T31s must be upgraded.

- Regardless of what is getting built at Rosyth between 2026/2036 it’s time to get a costed plan in place. The RB2s were rushed and RN has had to work with a compromised platform ever since. The MROSS, LSVs and OPVs should not be complicated so it’s time to get the designs agreed and contracts signed before the GE In Autumn 2024.

- With work not beginning on the T32s until the mid 2030s plenty of time for HMG and RN to come up with another T26 like world beating design and export success with the T32

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑17 Mar 2023, 08:59 Short but a worthy overview of IR23
https://www.navylookout.com/integrated- ... me-nation/

In real terms HMG have cut defence spending again so something that is not currently under contract will have to go.

Without further funding it is very likely the T32 programme will be delayed or cancelled now. The steel should be cut in 2026 and with another Defense review due in 2025 the timeline looks incredibly tight.

Rosyth had better start looking for something else to do.

The whole article falls down on one basic error, it states that inflation will wipe out the defence budget increase. All ministerial budgets always get increased by inflation . The increase announced is in addition to that. Thats why its stated as an increase from 2% to 2.25% of GDP

Is the increase inline with (defence) inflation and is the £10bn increase really in addition to inflation (I.e. is it a real terms increase of 10bn)?

Has the standing pledge to increase spending by inflation + 0.5% been cancelled?

Caribbean wrote: ↑17 Mar 2023, 20:04 Has the standing pledge to increase spending by inflation + 0.5% been cancelled?

Its a manifesto commitment.

Page 55
https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/ ... festo-2019

I’m surprised someone in the media hasn’t asked HMG to clarify this yet.

Bongodog wrote: ↑17 Mar 2023, 17:33 All ministerial budgets always get increased by inflation .

Eh please post evidence of that because I and many others are unware of any such convention.

A useful overview.
https://www.navylookout.com/why-has-the ... in-a-year/

A couple of points:

1. If either the T26 or T31 build experiences delays the active Frigate numbers are going to drop into single figures. Even the possibility of this should be ringing alarm bells.

2. Clearly the OPVs are going to be relied upon to achieve more than ever but removing six vessels in one year leaves gaps everywhere. What is going to provide meaningful HADR response in APT(N) for the next hurricane season?

If it is a Bay then either LRG(N) or LRG(S) isn’t going to be able to form unless the second Albion is reactivated.

RN needs to replace the RB1s now to offset the lack of hulls over the next 8 to 10 years.

Alternatively HMG could reactivate both Waves and covert them to Joint Logistic Ships to provide meaningful HADR capabilities whilst also being able to usefully slot into the LRGs if required.

No matter how hard someone wishes it, an OPV will never come close to covering the loss of Frigate hulls. The RN is now in a position where it can focus most of it's capital effort on delivering frigates, and like @Poiuytrewq points out, they need to be delivered on time. I expect the simple T31 can hit the target, and be a springboard for increasing force availability.

For anything bigger than a frigate the only option is to get the Bays as active as possible. That means removing the Bay class from the gulf, and in the spirit of new cooperation, buying the other back from Australia.

RN/RM personnel of January

2020 38,980
2021 39,990
2022 40,270
2023 38,990

Within 1 year, RN/RM lost 1280 personnel.

2 Echos (75x2 = 150) and 2 Sandowns (35x2 = 70) is only 220. Frigate's crew is just rotating = sent to LIFEX-finished T23. I understand the on-board crew is about 1/3 of the total man-power. If ~1300 personnel are lost, it means ~400 crew be lost. 220 is not enough....

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑23 Mar 2023, 14:42 RN/RM personnel of January

2020 38,980
2021 39,990
2022 40,270
2023 38,990

Within 1 year, RN/RM lost 1280 personnel.

2 Echos (75x2 = 150) and 2 Sandowns (35x2 = 70) is only 220. Frigate's crew is just rotating = sent to LIFEX-finished T23. I understand the on-board crew is about 1/3 of the total man-power. If ~1300 personnel are lost, it means ~400 crew be lost. 220 is not enough....

So what we know is that the 2 new off the self RFA ships will have a Crew of 24 RFA and 65+ RN for there roles this is in line with the mission crews of both Echo's and 2 MCM so it looks to me that we have retired 4 well worked older ships and moved there mission crews on to 2 much bigger newer ships able to operate more unmanned kit

2 x Sandown class 52 meters crew 34 = 68 crew vs MV Island Crown 97 meters crew 90

2 x Echo's 90 meters 2 x crew 144 vs the MROS 98 meters crew 90

Tempest414 wrote: ↑23 Mar 2023, 16:35

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑23 Mar 2023, 14:42 RN/RM personnel of January

2020 38,980
2021 39,990
2022 40,270
2023 38,990

Within 1 year, RN/RM lost 1280 personnel.

2 Echos (75x2 = 150) and 2 Sandowns (35x2 = 70) is only 220. Frigate's crew is just rotating = sent to LIFEX-finished T23. I understand the on-board crew is about 1/3 of the total man-power. If ~1300 personnel are lost, it means ~400 crew be lost. 220 is not enough....

So what we know is that the 2 new off the self RFA ships will have a Crew of 24 RFA and 65+ RN for there roles this is in line with the mission crews of both Echo's and 2 MCM so it looks to me that we have retired 4 well worked older ships and moved there mission crews on to 2 much bigger newer ships able to operate more unmanned kit

2 x Sandown class 52 meters crew 34 = 68 crew vs MV Island Crown 97 meters crew 90

2 x Echo's 90 meters 2 x crew 144 vs the MROS 98 meters crew 90

Interesting. Looks logical.

But, from where the 1300 souls (~400 on board crew) have been lost?

Wait…

Prince of Wales has lost about a half of her crew? Speculation. But, we will know when she comes back from repair = in a 8-10 months

shark bait wrote: ↑23 Mar 2023, 12:15 No matter how hard someone wishes it, an OPV will never come close to covering the loss of Frigate hulls.

It really depends what RN want the vessel to do.

If it is general maritime security patrols, Defence engagement and HADR then a properly appointed OPV is a better choice than a Frigate. OPV design is moving on and a River Class 1 or 2 is last generation now, still effective but not as effective as the next-gen designs.

The T31 was supposed to fill this maritime security niche but it looks increasingly likely they will be upgraded to a GP standard which will make the class much less economical in low threat areas. A crew allocation of 120 plus EMF, 24 CAMM, 8x NSM, 57mm/40mm, Wildcat etc plus regular Frigate refits will make the T31 an expensive vessel to operate for simple maritime security deployments.

A high capacity OPV with a crew allocation of 45 plus flight and EMF, a single 40mm and a Wildcat would much cheaper to operate, just as capable in maritime security tasks, much more capable in responding to a HADR emergency and also provide a stable and effective platform for launching/recovering off board systems.

Given the production logjam in the mid to late 2020s RN really need to get on with the RB1 replacements now.

….in the spirit of new cooperation, buying the other back from Australia.

Recommissioning Largs Bay would be great but I think the chances of that are unfortunately, vanishingly small.