Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7248
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 01 Feb 2023, 15:06
Ron5 wrote: 01 Feb 2023, 14:33
SD67 wrote: 01 Feb 2023, 06:18 Id say BAE/MOD will use that gap to gut the place and rebuild it from the ground up likely consolidated on 1 yard
Bae won't lift a finger or spend a penny on rebuilding facilities without a firm order. Been burnt too many times.
At a guess I'd say it would be costed into the T83 program the same way Barrow's expansion is costed into Dreadnought.
And the new Govan shed costed into T26 Batch 2.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote: 01 Feb 2023, 14:44
NickC wrote: 01 Feb 2023, 10:56 After reading the above post by N-a-B i personally wouldn't let BAE within a barge pole of the T83 design.
You clearly don't understand N-a-B's comments. Neither have you heard that type T26 design has been licensed to both Canada & Australia and will tug along hundreds of millions in UK exports.

But hey ho, keep shitting on Bae and UK defence. We all love a troll.
As the one and only resident troll on this site your comments rich with irony, would point out i did work foe BAE at one time and thankfully
nothing like as incompetent as the maritime division shown up to be, so again piss off.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Moved across….
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 03 Feb 2023, 12:37 Many.

1: Helicopters:
- Carry 2nd Merlin. (if CVF is filled with F35 and/or Chinook and Apach)
- Carry 3rd and 4th Wildcats (in addition to the 2 in the hangar) for 24hr/7day Stingray torpedo delivery and/or anti-surface attacking capability (with 4 SeaVenoms each).
- Carry 1 Merlin in the hangar and 4 heavy-lift UAVs for 24/7 torpedo delivery and 4 patrol UAVs.

2: USVs:
- ARCIMS USV can steam at 40knots (in calm sea) and can be operational even in SeaState 4-5. Then, how about 2-3 ARCIMS USV with SeaSense ASW kits? I think this is the best option. In shallow water, even CAPTAS-4 cannot provide long enough detection range. ARCIMS SeaSense USVs can provide good "ping" and listening, while steaming around T26 (say, 10-30 km apart). T26's CAPTAS-4 passive TASS can join the multi-static ASW, provided a "big ear".
- 3-4 Patrolling surface USVs, like BAE "Pacific 24" USVs. The fleet will provide 24/7 barrier against incoming fast boat terrorists, so "escort" and "defend" the CV, RFA and even T45 and T26.

In emergency, XLUUV and MCM-USVs will be deployed. In case of MCM, when the theater is at high risk, a T26 shall be needed to proceed near the shore. Although unlikely to happen, this "possibility" will make enemy's effort on sea-mining much more difficult. Anti-USV-MCM mines shall be prepared, which directly means anti-ship mines will be reduced.
All great so why the need for a new Class?

What can a T32 do that a T26 cannot? RN need to answer this question or the whole T32 programme looks like either a dead-end or a job creation scheme for Rosyth. A simple cost comparison is not applicable unless the vessels are both fitted with the same weapons and sensors. A T26 lite for around £650m each or £2.6bn for a batch of 4 hulls is a solid alternative to the T32 programme.

To make sense the T32 programme would need to provide all of the multi-mission versatility of the T26 (minus the ASW enhancements) for a total programme cost of less than £2bn for the five hulls. The only way to get a cost effective Rosyth built T32 is to heavily base it on the T31.

The ability to move systems between mission spaces would unlock the potential of the T31. The attached graphics illustrate the possibilities.
CAABFD4E-E4E2-40D1-BACA-01548EEC3A4B.jpeg
CBE5CAAB-07D9-4E41-939A-8BD9BEF33121.jpeg
133F654D-A139-4D67-9DD1-ECCDC083052E.jpeg
Could Babcock unlock the potential of the T31 hull for £400m each? Tempting if they can regardless of other options.
I really think Babcock shall build MRSS. It is critical for Rosyth. T32 after MRSS, or MRSS after T32. Anyway, needed.
Perhaps the most rational outcome is to combine the two proposed classes, so effectively the T32 and MRSS programs would merge to create greater economies of scale by culminating in a single self escorting MRSS.

In effect it would be a self escorting 145m LPD with a 22m beam and a top speed of 24knts.

Something along these lines.

LOA: 145m
Beam: 22m
Top Speed: 24knts
Range: 10000nm
127mm or 57mm
2x 40mm
32CAMM
24 Mk41 cells
8x NSM
Artisan
2 spot flight deck
Multipurpose hanger for 4 medium helicopters
Floodable dock for four CB90 or one LCU

A class of eight such vessels is probably the cheapest overall option and would give the FCF a fantastic platform to operate from.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

so what you want is a Absalon class with dock or Palfiger plus a beam crane

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 04 Feb 2023, 12:24 so what you want is a Absalon class with dock or Palfiger plus a beam crane
I’m more interested in what RN want.

The T32 programme makes very little sense on multiple levels especially when the financial envelope is so tight. The RB2, T31, T32, T26, T45 balance looks like at least one class too many.

Building a new class of multi-role Frigates to escort a multi-role support ship doesn’t make a lot of sense either especially when RN already has a programme of multi-role Frigates in the water and currently in-build.

The explanation from HMG for the T32 programme thus far has been far from convincing and increasingly looks like a job creation scheme for Rosyth. It also appears that RN are attempting to unlock the potential of the T31 design second time around as the original batch were forced through the design process much too fast to maximise the potential of the class.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
Jensy

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe maybe not if we take an Absalon class as the T-32 and build 6 dedicate to the LRG role and still build 6 MRSS and then pair them up we have a strong force from one T-32 carrying a company of RM 2 helicopters plus ORC all the way up to say 4 pairs of T-32 & MRSS carrying 2 x Battalion battle groups plus 20 helicopters including 8 Chinooks and landing craft

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The T31 is a political folly - the wrong ship design whose main purpose seems the been to score points against BAE.

He’s a solution - sell the 5 already ordered to Poland and New Zealand. Increase the drumbeat of the T26 build by adding 2 more, and then focus on turning Babcock into a OPV/Sloop builder.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Ron5
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 04 Feb 2023, 16:51 The T31 is a political folly - the wrong ship design whose main purpose seems the been to score points against BAE.

He’s a solution - sell the 5 already ordered to Poland and New Zealand. Increase the drumbeat of the T26 build by adding 2 more, and then focus on turning Babcock into a OPV/Sloop builder.
How much do you realistically expect the RN to be able to sell these 5*T31 for?? £200m? £100m? £50m?

Bear in mind that Poland is building their own version of T31 (albeit properly armed), whilst New Zealand spends comparitively so little on defence that they can't crew the vessels that they have already got.

I have always been critical of RN building underarmed ships - the whole Fitted For But Not With. So the RN has been building larger ships than required, and thus more expensive per ships, and thus lower quantity of ships ordered.

But my view is to maximise the ships that we already have got in service / that are being built. So whilst I am not enthused about ordering new ships like the T32 (without clear definition of what their roles are), I would rather uparm the T31 so that they can serve as proper GP Frigates, allowing the T26 to concentrate on being Tier One ASW specialist Frigates.

It seems that your suggestion would leave the RN with just 16 escorts - that is not enough in my opinion.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Manpower of the T31 is significantly less than the Anzac class which will need to be replaced in the next decade, so a good option IMO.

Yes, Poland plans to build its own, but if the price is right then why bother - there’s zero chance of them sustaining a domestic frigate factory.

Yes, we could up-arm the T31s, but the value sustaining a frigate class with out a clear need is questionable. Just a shame they didn’t insist on a mission bay.

In terms of 16 escorts, I’m fine with it, as ultimately it depend ls what you are escorting. It’s more than enough for two CSGs which is where my mind is. Sure you need a few frigates to chase subs but with everything else being discussed (XLUUVS etc) 10 T26s should be sufficient for both.

What I do want though is 16 multi-role mothership Sloops @£200-250mn each (all in), that would make a capable navy.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Repulse wrote: 04 Feb 2023, 20:18
Yes, we could up-arm the T31s, but the value sustaining a frigate class with out a clear need is questionable. Just a shame they didn’t insist on a mission bay.
So lets scrap the rest of the T23GP left now then as there is no clear need for GP frigates. Why does it need a mission bay? What is the clear need that would go in it.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 05:38
Repulse wrote: 04 Feb 2023, 20:18
Yes, we could up-arm the T31s, but the value sustaining a frigate class with out a clear need is questionable. Just a shame they didn’t insist on a mission bay.
So lets scrap the rest of the T23GP left now then as there is no clear need for GP frigates. Why does it need a mission bay? What is the clear need that would go in it.
We are already scrapping the T23 GPs and will be very soon down to 3, leaving a Frigate force of 11. In my comment, I was proposing 10 T26s.

However, we seem to be obsessed by the numbers game rather than thinking what is required and cutting of cloth accordingly. What are you planning to escort? The LRGs would integrate with a CSG for anything with a significant maritime/air threat.

In terms of my Sloop proposal, what goes is the mission bay really is quite simple:

- containers for HADR
- the new multi-role PODs being built
- Force protection and MCM USVs
- ASW, Survey and Surveillance UUVs
- RM raiding boats, patrol and landing craft
- RM accommodation
- modular medical facilities
- helicopters and UAVs
- …
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 04 Feb 2023, 16:29 Maybe maybe not if we take an Absalon class as the T-32 and build 6 dedicate to the LRG role and still build 6 MRSS and then pair them up we have a strong force….
Repulse wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 08:24 What are you planning to escort? The LRGs would integrate with a CSG for anything with a significant maritime/air threat.
The beauty about the LRG/LSG concept is it’s inherent scalability. It provides a coherent force in a relatively short timeframe,from widely distributed assets, that are routinely conducting important but low-cost security and humanitarian taskings.

Excellent in theory but how is it going to work in practice?

First things first: what would a sovereign UK LRG/LSG look like today with RN/RFA assets currently in the water?

Actually extremely competent.

Littoral Response Group:
1x T23 GP
1x RB2
Argus
1x Bay
1x Wave or Tide

Littoral Strike Group:
1x T23 GP
2x T23 ASW
1x T45
Argus
1x Albion
1x Bay
1x Wave
1x Tide

Clearly further assets could be deployed if required such as Fort Victoria, SSN(s), P8’s, MCMVs all the way up to a full CSG. It’s worth remembering that the UK is one of only a handful of countries in the world that can do this and dismantling such a phenomenal capability to “make it better” would be beyond stupid.

Although the current capability is impressive it’s not without gaps and shortcomings which really need to be sorted as the current assets are replaced.

IMO these are:

1. Losing Ocean was a massive loss which has not be resolved by the commissioning of PWLS.

2. Selling Largs Bay was a massive mistake especially considering how important the Bays have become over the last decade.

3. Having the second Albion and both Waves in extended readiness is a huge waste of resources that the RN and HMG can no longer afford. The distributed asset approach should make the extended readiness model redundant going forward.

4. The lack of embarked aviation in permanent hangers on both the LPDs and LSDs is a massive capability gap especially as UAVs become more prolific.

5. Introducing a class of Frigates (T31) much less capable than the T23 GPs that are being replaced is cost cutting gone too far. The complete lack of any ASW capability is the biggest concern especially if the T32s don’t materialise.

6. The lack of a NGS on the T31s is also unacceptable unless augmented by another system. The FCF fighting in the Littoral will need NGS which the T23 GP can currently provide, what system is due to provide this? If the CSG is involved it’s unlikely any T26s will be available for NGS. Does this make the Mk45 mandatory for the T32?

7. The complete lack of a TLAM capability across the entire surface fleet. The introduction of NSM and hopefully TLAM in the T26s will hopefully address this issue.

8. It is highly likely that drones will continue to become more important in the battle space going forward. Current planning has No allowances for the operation of naval MALE drones within the Amphibious fleet. Relying entirely on the CSG for all MALE drones is not sustainable. The inability of the Amphib fleet to launch and recover MALE drones is something that is completely unacceptable and has not been considered at all in the MRSS concept. This reason alone will stop MRSS proceeding as planned without major adaption.

It’s clear that the current setup is good but not perfect but it’s also clear that current planning would make it worse not better.

The T32 and MRSS are likely to cost £4bn to £5bn starting in just three years time.

Personally I think its time for a complete reappraisal of the current direction of travel.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

But is that not like saying a task group is scalable for a task nothing much happens individually I’m not sure that is any different to how it’s always worked on land sea and air since ww2 tbh.

On your points

1. Yes but it was the navy high command that insisted on shit or bust with the carriers.

2. Yes but if you weren’t interested in amphibious warfare it wasn’t considered a loss see point 1

3 see point 1 and 2

4. Not if you appreciate what the role of the lpd and lsd was and the intended mode of operation eg a to form a task group with HMS ocean and a task group with an invincible class ship. They were not intended for individual operations. It was essentially to have two what the US call expeditionary strike groups quite a sensible construct. If you had wanted more distribution you would have been better off procuring 4 LHDs to replace ocean, the lpds and the invincible class.

5. I thought that myth had been debunked by now but apparently no

6. Good luck doing Naval gun fire against an enemy with an shore based anti ship missile/ uav capability see Ukraines used of such systems in the Black Sea for why that won’t be happening so not required.

7. Maybe but ships are just a launch platform they require a much bigger background support. It was also used as a budget justification for ssns and you know buying more ships than arming what they have…

8. See points 1-4.

I would agree the direction of travel does need some thought, the navy needs to be more focused on controlling the sea and less on involving itself in large scale land wars.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Add to the list of mistakes scrapping Fort George Just think what we could of had

Group 1

Ocean , Albion , 2 X Bay , 1 x Wave class

Group 2

Bulwark , 2 x Bay , Argus , Fort George

Also unless you are using a 127mm with Volcano rounds to give you 90 km range stay away from NGFS would be much better to use Hero 120 launch 20 or so from the ships to conduct recce strike up to 35kms in land and once the troops hit the beach they can launch more hero 120 to conduct recce strike up to 65kms in land

Lets take this to its lowest level one River B2 is tasked with a low risk raid it is carrying 1 x Troop of RM , 3 x ORC and 20 Hero 120 the ship closes the coast within 50 km it launches the RM in there ORC 15 mins latter it launches 2 x Hero 120 these arrive and carry out a recce of the area and carry out any strikes needed the RM troop arrive and launch 2 more in a over watch role they conduct there raid and recover the Hero's now the ship launches 2 more to carry out over watch of there return
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

But we didn’t have it, because the money wasn’t there to pay for it.

Also, no matter how we want to look at it, the RN has decided Carrier Strike is more important that large/medium scale amphibious operations - and tbh I’m fine with that.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoRon5
”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: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 17:09 But we didn’t have it, because the money wasn’t there to pay for it.

Also, no matter how we want to look at it, the RN has decided Carrier Strike is more important that large/medium scale amphibious operations - and tbh I’m fine with that.
Good for you

For me the navy surface fleet should be a 3 level affair Carrier Strike , Amphibious Strike and Patrol and Protect

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

We will have 3 levels to our surface fleet, just Carrier Strike , Amphibious Raid and Patrol and Surveillance
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

If we could wind the clock back ten years, then I would have liked to hav seen neither the River Batch 2s or the T31s ordered. I would have liked to have seen an in between class of ship, around 105-110m long to be able to conduct helicopter operations.
    To me the River B2s are too small to have a hangar and too lightly armed.
      To me the T31s are just too large for their existing armanent.
      • I would have been looking for main armanent of maybe 40mm cannon with a couple of secondary 20mm. The idea being these ships would have been sufficiently armed for general patrol and anti-piracy duties, and could defend themselves against drones or small boat attacks.
      • I would have liked flight deck big enough to land a Chinook (for HADR missions etc) but a hangar larger enough to initially carry a Wildcat, and eventually to carry unmanned UAV.
      • If the boat bay was adjoining the hangar and served by a crane, then that should have been sufficient to deploy RIB or USV/USuV. You could call it a Multi-Mission Bay if it had facilities to cope with handling shipping containers and pods
      • I don't mind if you called this class as Oceanic Patrol Vessels, Corvettes, Sloops, Light Frigates, Patrol Frigates etc. The point is that these ships could handle the low intensity tasks that would otherwise occupy the Tier One warfighting escorts, but were intended to be cheaper than the much larger T31s. These would have been the main RN escorts permanetly based overseas, covering British Overseas Territories, but also working with our Allies and local navies in South America, Africa as well as the Indo Pacific.
      • For the likes of Carribbean and Mediterranean, these could be supplmented by smaller OPV, more lightly armed that were intended more for fishery protection, anti-smuggling etc. This would have been similar to the French who have launched / are developing the Overseas Patrol Vessels (Patrouilleurs Outre-mer, POM), and also high sea patrol vessels (Patrouilleurs de Haute Mer de Nouvelle Génération, PHM-NG) i.e. Oceanic Patrol Vessel.
      But we don't have a time machine. And so I can't hope that aspect of Fantasy Fleets will happen. We do have the 5*River B2s in service and the 5*T31s been ordered and under construction. Those that advocate selling the T31s in particular have yet to quantify how much we can realistically expect to receive for selling them. We have talked many times about spending money to upgrade eithr the River B2s or T31s. My view is that we should consider some smaller cheaper upgrades to get the best use out of both classes as tensions rise worldwide, with Russian invasion of Ukraine, the increasing power of China, and the extremists in both Iran and North Korea.

      Thus for the River B2s, I dont see the point in upgrading their main gun to 57mm (which is deck penetrating and thus would require more work to install) but quite like the idea of upgrading to a 40mm (which is non deck pentetrating) and thus share logistics with T31, whilst benefiting from longer range and hitting power. I would have liked a telescopic hangar but I gather that would require removal of the crane, but I would like to add more UAV capability for ISR missions. Martlett missiles would give them additional counters to drones and small boat attacks.

      For the T31s, I would want them to be proper General Purpose frigates. So increasing CAMM VLS would give them greater staying power. Transferring the (already) purchased NSM from T23 to T31 would give them a cheaper but lethal littoral strike capability (by cheaper I mean compared to the no doubt very expensive Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon which is inteneded to be launched fro T26s Mk41 VLS). Finally we should consider improvement in equipment and sensors, maybe radar but especially Sonar to allow the T31 to at least contribute to ASW, especially if guarding the Littoral Strike Group.

      Do we need more T26s? Ideally and unequivocally = yes!! We are stretched thin with just 8.
      Do we need T26s at the expense of everything else? IMO - probably not.
      I want T26s being deployed at what they do best and what they are optimised for. ASW work, defending CSG & CASD, patrolling GIUK Gap and North Atlantic and North /Barents Seas.

      What I do NOT want to see is that T26s are being used on HADR, anti piracy and patrolling Global shipping lanes in the likes of Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Persian Gulf. THAT is what T31s do best and what they are optimised for.

      Those that want to buy approx 2*T26 instead of 5*T31 are thinking that RN's sole missions are ASW and defending North Atlantic. They seem to forget that we are an island nation as dependant on both exports and imports along the aforementioned global shipping lanes to the Indo-Pacific. Our highest priority might be the former (and thus we require more escorts for it) but we can't ignore the latter.

      So whilst I would spend some money upgrading the T31s to be a proper GP Frigate, my opinion is that any talk of selling them is naive, as we will not get enough from selling the 5*T31s secod hand to be able afford even 2*T26s.

      The RN thought it needed a mix of 8*T23 ASW and 5*T23 GP for the last couple of decades to cover the whole variety of RN missions. Yes it has now started to decommission arly Monmouth and Montros, but that is bcause the Naval Budgt has been allowed to shrink too much that crew retention / recruitment is so bad that we cannot find enough crew to man them and thus we are undergoing yet another short term capability gap that we have too often in recent years.

      My view is that replacing the T23s with 8*T26 ASW and 5*T31 GP is the correct step if (and only if) the T31s are uparmed to at least the level of their predecessors.

      If further funds can be made available to RN, then I am not averse to cancelling the unknown T32 and addding a couple more T26s as batch 3 at the end of existing build.
      These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post (total 2):
      Poiuytrewqdonald_of_tokyo

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

      Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

      Post by tomuk »

      Repulse wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 08:24
      tomuk wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 05:38
      Repulse wrote: 04 Feb 2023, 20:18
      Yes, we could up-arm the T31s, but the value sustaining a frigate class with out a clear need is questionable. Just a shame they didn’t insist on a mission bay.
      So lets scrap the rest of the T23GP left now then as there is no clear need for GP frigates. Why does it need a mission bay? What is the clear need that would go in it.
      We are already scrapping the T23 GPs and will be very soon down to 3, leaving a Frigate force of 11. In my comment, I was proposing 10 T26s.

      However, we seem to be obsessed by the numbers game rather than thinking what is required and cutting of cloth accordingly. What are you planning to escort? The LRGs would integrate with a CSG for anything with a significant maritime/air threat.

      In terms of my Sloop proposal, what goes is the mission bay really is quite simple:

      - containers for HADR
      - the new multi-role PODs being built
      - Force protection and MCM USVs
      - ASW, Survey and Surveillance UUVs
      - RM raiding boats, patrol and landing craft
      - RM accommodation
      - modular medical facilities
      - helicopters and UAVs
      - …
      For a man who wants to not chase numbers and thinks we should cut our cloth accordingly buying two more T26 and an undefined number of a new class of sloops seems somewhat antithetical. How much is that lot going to cost?

      As regards your list of things which would go in the mission bay you wouldn't need or want half that lot on a frigate and surely any where your sloop can go a much larger and better performing auxiliary can too. As the sloop isn't going to venture anywhere slightly hot without an escort.
      These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
      SW1

      SW1
      Senior Member
      Posts: 5656
      Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
      United Kingdom

      Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

      Post by SW1 »

      I remain completely convinced that type 31 is what the type 23 replacement should have been all along indeed we should build a few more. It is the most sensible procurement since HMS Ocean was laid down. It’s not about adding a couple of extra missiles here or there it is a ship with comprehensive damage control, redundancy and sensors to control the environment around it and can actually add something to a coalition task group, Something an opv doesn’t do.

      If you want a construct for all these unmanned systems then place them on an offshore supply vessel like the ones the RFA are purchasing or some other RFA and if they fwd deploy they can be escorted by a type 31. Trying to cram things into a frigate is a classic case of over specifications that is driving costs up.

      Repulse
      Donator
      Posts: 4580
      Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
      United Kingdom

      Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

      Post by Repulse »

      Great one frigate per RFA, utterly pointless.
      ”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: 5656
      Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
      United Kingdom

      Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

      Post by SW1 »

      Repulse wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 19:38 Great one frigate per RFA, utterly pointless.
      Do we not escort RFAs in locations we deem it necessary already.

      Repulse
      Donator
      Posts: 4580
      Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
      United Kingdom

      Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

      Post by Repulse »

      tomuk wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 18:40 For a man who wants to not chase numbers and thinks we should cut our cloth accordingly buying two more T26 and an undefined number of a new class of sloops seems somewhat antithetical. How much is that lot going to cost?
      A damn a lot less than trying to maintain two frigate yards with inefficient build drumbeats. Plus, you end up with two frigates that can actually do something rather than five that cannot go in harms way and do anything useful.
      tomuk wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 18:40 As regards your list of things which would go in the mission bay you wouldn't need or want half that lot on a frigate…
      But half should go into a T26, you are right the rest shouldn’t go on a Frigate, but as you know that’s not what I’m proposing.
      tomuk wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 18:40
      …surely any where your sloop can go a much larger and better performing auxiliary can too. As the sloop isn't going to venture anywhere slightly hot without an escort.
      This is wrong on so many levels. First an RFA is not a warship and shouldn’t be going anywhere even slightly warm. Second, RFAs are not cheap and unless you really want to take all war fighting capability away from the Navy can never be built in numbers. Third a Sloop can go more places than a RFA, both in terms of threat level (ok not hot, but warm-ish) and area - everyone is obsessed by massive ships which are limited in both where they can operate and also which ports they can use.
      ”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

      Repulse
      Donator
      Posts: 4580
      Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
      United Kingdom

      Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

      Post by Repulse »

      SW1 wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 19:43
      Repulse wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 19:38 Great one frigate per RFA, utterly pointless.
      Do we not escort RFAs in locations we deem it necessary already.
      Yes, but you are completely missing the point by adding more and then expecting them to be paired by escorts.
      ”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

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

      Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

      Post by tomuk »

      Repulse wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 19:48
      tomuk wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 18:40 For a man who wants to not chase numbers and thinks we should cut our cloth accordingly buying two more T26 and an undefined number of a new class of sloops seems somewhat antithetical. How much is that lot going to cost?
      A damn a lot less than trying to maintain two frigate yards with inefficient build drumbeats. Plus, you end up with two frigates that can actually do something rather than five that cannot go in harms way and do anything useful.
      Where are you going to build your sloops? They will need a second yard too. And as for your characterisation of T31 as not being able to go in harms way how is your sloop going to do the same? It is surely by your own definition is less of a warship than T31.
      tomuk wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 18:40 As regards your list of things which would go in the mission bay you wouldn't need or want half that lot on a frigate…
      But half should go into a T26, you are right the rest shouldn’t go on a Frigate, but as you know that’s not what I’m proposing.
      The only thing you might want to put in the T26 mission bay to aid its primary ASW role is possibly a loyal wingman style unmanned surface or subsurface vessel to carry extra sonar equipment.
      tomuk wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 18:40
      …surely any where your sloop can go a much larger and better performing auxiliary can too. As the sloop isn't going to venture anywhere slightly hot without an escort.
      This is wrong on so many levels. First an RFA is not a warship and shouldn’t be going anywhere even slightly warm. Second, RFAs are not cheap and unless you really want to take all war fighting capability away from the Navy can never be built in numbers. Third a Sloop can go more places than a RFA, both in terms of threat level (ok not hot, but warm-ish) and area - everyone is obsessed by massive ships which are limited in both where they can operate and also which ports they can use.
      Firstly I was using the term auxiliary in the vessel sense i.e. a naval vessel (such as a tanker or supply ship) auxiliary to the fighting ships not to refer specifically to the RFA. Secondly you belief that RFA vessels don't operate in 'slightly warm' areas is nonsense. Where would the RFA LSDs operate during an amphibious landing? Stay at home in port? The LSLs in the Falkland's were never attached were they?
      These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
      wargame_insomniac

      Post Reply