Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Repulse]

The AUKUS pack is the single most important naval technology and strategic agreement since Polaris. It builds a capability with Australia that means we don’t need to be there long term because they have the capability to work with the US to contain China as we do here with the US against Russia in a similar vein to why we set up the Royal Australian navy in the first place! SSNs are both the principle means of intelligence gathering at sea in peace and containment asset in war against high end opponents. It isn’t strategic gobbledygook it’s actually strategic rather than simple looking at the present and reacting. Short term reduction in the Atlantic for a long term security gain. More needs to be spent on submarines not less and if that means less surface fleet then less surface fleet it is.

Absolutely agree with the importance of AUKUS and the strategic importance of getting Australia up and running with SSNs.

Without going too far off topic again, I do also see Diego Garcia as a key part of the UKs IndoPacific strategy, and as you mentioned earlier should be considered more important than the Gulf for all three services, especially the RN and RAF. I for one would argue for the 2 OPVs to be based from there, and with z berths already there a permanent forward based SSN.

Opv plus doesn’t exist nor when you start adding things to make it plus will it be any cheaper than what we are doing now. Where are the low threat areas that we have interest in?

It depends on what is the “plus” - adding a hangar and larger gun definitely exists and can be argued as relevant and a requirement for a number of regions.

Outside of the high north, anywhere in the Atlantic, plus the Southern Indian Ocean and Pacific are low threat regions currently.

[Tempest414]

The RN doesn’t need to be everywhere it needs to be where it supports government strategy and the future economy.

RN needs to help to stabilise and maintain peace.

That doesn’t necessarily require a combatant everywhere.

There is nothing I have mentioned that suggests concentrating on building up the army in Europe or pulling back I have mentioned a set of priorities though.

Building a BAOR style land army is the easy option for the U.K. but if it artificially constrains RN by diverting funding then it’s a foolish endeavour. It’s simply not a priority for the U.K. or NATO. Perhaps we agree on this.

Most of the Euro NATO countries have shown a complete disinterest in getting involved in the Red Sea which is totally predictable.

Leaving it to the US, UK, France and Japan etc is fine but the other Euro NATO countries need to build the land army deterrent instead as their main contribution.

Maybe more than a single escort in Arabia and east Africa is required but it’s a lower priority than the nato and Atlantic tasks imo.

Absolutley but expanding the number of RNs non-combatant patrol vessels actually increases RNs ability to concentrate it’s combatants where they will have the most effect.

Having 3x T31 EoS with another 4x T31 operating from the U.K. would be a game changing capability. Allowing the T45/T26 to concentrate on the CSG and TAPS would just increase effectiveness further.

A modest class of OPV+ are the key to unlocking the capability IMO however if funding increased it could be achieved in other ways.

Yes having an ssn in the pacific is a priority as AUKUS is the naval priority. The upside of selling submarines is pretty huge, as is the need to contain China and having Australia able to contribute to it means we are secure as a result. The ssn is the principle capability for Pacific warfare at sea.

So why remove it from the North Atlantic? There currently is no requirement for warfare at sea in the Pacific. It will be a colossal strategic failure if the U.K. SSNs are ever required for warfighting at sea in the Pacific.

You can’t have it both ways.

If the UK is to concentrate on the Euro Atlantic and let the US and Australia deal with the Indo Pacific sending one of the U.K.’s precious SSNs permanently to the Indo Pacific is strategic gobbledygook. Unless of course selling submarines is the priority.

How you think sending actual warships to locations of interest is isolationism rather than unarmed offshore vessels is baffling.

Im baffled why you are baffled.

IMO the best strategy for RN within the current fiscal envelope is to increase mass through building more non combatant OPV+ vessels in the short term whilst proceeding with a policy of increasing combatant numbers by 2040. It is also imperative that ALL Frigates and Destroyers are fully maximised, fully armed and fully crewed.

The OPV+ vessels are cost effective and can maintain a high number of days at sea with a minimal crew allocation. The combatants are the opposite.

The OPV and OPV+ vessels patrol the low threat areas.

The T31s patrol the higher threat areas.

The T46/T26 concentrate on the CSG and TAPs.

Completely proportionate and affordable.

Just my opinion.

The RN maintains safe passage at sea where it is most beneficial to the UK. It does not need to be everywhere.

You seem to think concentrating on the euro and Atlantic areas is about BOAR reforming. Not sure why you think this but it isn’t. There is more than enough to do around the north south Atlantic, Mediterranean and Baltic to more than keep the RN busy and where it matters most to our economy.

Denmark, Germany, Italy and Greece are supposedly sending escorts to the Red Sea.


No it doesnt adding non combatants ships just adds non combatant ships and removes resource and crew, tries to be all things to all people everywhere rather than concentrating in priority areas that are important to us.

The AUKUS pack is the single most important naval technology and strategic agreement since Polaris. It builds a capability with Australia that means we don’t need to be there long term because they have the capability to work with the US to contain China as we do here with the US against Russia in a similar vein to why we set up the Royal Australian navy in the first place! SSNs are both the principle means of intelligence gathering at sea in peace and containment asset in war against high end opponents. It isn’t strategic gobbledygook it’s actually strategic rather than simple looking at the present and reacting. Short term reduction in the Atlantic for a long term security gain. More needs to be spent on submarines not less and if that means less surface fleet then less surface fleet it is.


Opv plus doesn’t exist nor when you start adding things to make it plus will it be any cheaper than what we are doing now. Where are the low threat areas that we have interest in?

Proliferation of drone technology to anti western actors state and none state at various strategically important locations are requiring increased situational awareness and anti air/surface capabilities to be used.

I think we should be able to build a 105 to 110 by 16 meter OPV with a cheap 3D radar good CMS crew of 45 with 1 x 57mm and 2 times 8 round LMM launches plus a hangar and flight deck for SH-60 or Wildcat

I also think we should be capable of adding the same radar and weapon system plus a Peregrine UAV to the RB2's giving both a good level of awareness plus anti air /surface against drones

[SW1]

[quote=Tempest414 post_id=164152

I think we should be able to build a 105 to 110 by 16 meter OPV with a cheap 3D radar good CMS crew of 45 with 1 x 57mm and 2 times 8 round LMM launches plus a hangar and flight deck for SH-60 or Wildcat


[/quote]

You can build anything you want if you go and design something, a build yard to build it and as much time as you like.

It will however not in anyway be cheaper or quicker than adding more of what you are already building even with all the wishing in word to make it so.

[Phil Sayers]

The problem with using Cyprus as a naval base is that if Egypt wanted to prevent something we intended to do further east they could refuse warship transit of the Suez Canal.

[Tempest414]

[quote=Tempest414 post_id=164152

I think we should be able to build a 105 to 110 by 16 meter OPV with a cheap 3D radar good CMS crew of 45 with 1 x 57mm and 2 times 8 round LMM launches plus a hangar and flight deck for SH-60 or Wildcat

You can build anything you want if you go and design something, a build yard to build it and as much time as you like.

It will however not in anyway be cheaper or quicker than adding more of what you are already building even with all the wishing in word to make it so.
[/quote]

That is not true is it now we all know that OPV's are cheaper to build we also know that Rosyth will come to the end of type 31 which will free yard space. there are some Vard designs plus the Danish are working on a new design we can jump on also BAE may be able to adpte the RB2 design

But putting that aside as said there is a lot that can be done with RB2

[Repulse]

The problem with using Cyprus as a naval base is that if Egypt wanted to prevent something we intended to do further east they could refuse warship transit of the Suez Canal.

Wouldn’t use it as a base, more along the lines of the wharf at Sembawang where ships can refuel and resupply (inc reload of missiles and fitting of PODs etc) in a region where RN ships will be operating. Yes there is a NATO base as Souda Bay in Crete, but it’s the same issue in that it’s not Sovereign.

[SW1]

[quote=Tempest414 post_id=164152

I think we should be able to build a 105 to 110 by 16 meter OPV with a cheap 3D radar good CMS crew of 45 with 1 x 57mm and 2 times 8 round LMM launches plus a hangar and flight deck for SH-60 or Wildcat

You can build anything you want if you go and design something, a build yard to build it and as much time as you like.

It will however not in anyway be cheaper or quicker than adding more of what you are already building even with all the wishing in word to make it so.

That is not true is it now we all know that OPV's are cheaper to build we also know that Rosyth will come to the end of type 31 which will free yard space. there are some Vard designs plus the Danish are working on a new design we can jump on also BAE may be able to adpte the RB2 design

But putting that aside as said there is a lot that can be done with RB2
[/quote]

Not if you start adding all the fancy bits. The often championed Vard 7 is the basis of the US coast guard heritage cutter. Which bits would you like to leave off from a design like this?

https://www.twz.com/get-to-know-the-coa ... ass-cutter

Rosyth are wanting more type 31 and will probably get them too.

[tomuk]

So no matter who owns Diego Garcia the US will be able to keep its base there on a long term lease so it would be a great place for us to base any escorts , OPV's or MRSS out of to cover the Indian Ocean , Gulf , and East Africa

If it is such a great location why are we not using it now?

[tomuk]

The problem with using Cyprus as a naval base is that if Egypt wanted to prevent something we intended to do further east they could refuse warship transit of the Suez Canal.

Wouldn’t use it as a base, more along the lines of the wharf at Sembawang where ships can refuel and resupply (inc reload of missiles and fitting of PODs etc) in a region where RN ships will be operating. Yes there is a NATO base as Souda Bay in Crete, but it’s the same issue in that it’s not Sovereign.

Which port in Cyprus is on sovereign UK soil?

[Repulse]

The problem with using Cyprus as a naval base is that if Egypt wanted to prevent something we intended to do further east they could refuse warship transit of the Suez Canal.

Wouldn’t use it as a base, more along the lines of the wharf at Sembawang where ships can refuel and resupply (inc reload of missiles and fitting of PODs etc) in a region where RN ships will be operating. Yes there is a NATO base as Souda Bay in Crete, but it’s the same issue in that it’s not Sovereign.

Which port in Cyprus is on sovereign UK soil?

None currently - I did make a suggestion that a deal could be done to swap land for a wharf at Limassol.

[new guy]

Just expand the port into the sovereign area with an extra pier would be my idea.

[Poiuytrewq]

The RN maintains safe passage at sea where it is most beneficial to the UK. It does not need to be everywhere.

So why did RN do it previously, long after empire?

Was it because the fleet was much larger than today?

You seem to think concentrating on the euro and Atlantic areas is about BOAR reforming. Not sure why you think this but it isn’t. There is more than enough to do around the north south Atlantic, Mediterranean and Baltic to more than keep the RN busy and where it matters most to our economy.

This is what Labour intend to do.

Let’s see how it works out.

Denmark, Germany, Italy and Greece are supposedly sending escorts to the Red Sea.

Where were they six weeks ago?

No it doesnt adding non combatants ships just adds non combatant ships and removes resource and crew, tries to be all things to all people everywhere rather than concentrating in priority areas that are important to us.

It’s the priority areas plus more.

The priority areas will keep changing depending on geopolitics.

The AUKUS pack is the single most important naval technology and strategic agreement since Polaris. It builds a capability with Australia that means we don’t need to be there long term because they have the capability to work with the US to contain China as we do here with the US against Russia in a similar vein to why we set up the Royal Australian navy in the first place! SSNs are both the principle means of intelligence gathering at sea in peace and containment asset in war against high end opponents. It isn’t strategic gobbledygook it’s actually strategic rather than simple looking at the present and reacting. Short term reduction in the Atlantic for a long term security gain. More needs to be spent on submarines not less and if that means less surface fleet then less surface fleet it is.

So if it’s not about selling submarines why not just leave it to USN?

The Virginias will be taking subs away from the US fleet. Basing an Astute there will remove a SSN from the North Atlantic and building SSNs for Australia will slow down the possible expansion of the U.K. SSN fleet. How much will the U.K.’s next SSN be delayed by to sell submarines to Australia?

I hear the big statements but if the Euro Atlantic is the priority what is the required number of U.K. SSNs to achieve a satisfactory outcome? The answer will be many more than seven.

The U.K. could very easily make the investment with BAE or Rolls Royce without Australia if HMG had chosen to do so. Commissioning a SSN every two years and maintaining a fleet of 12-15 is perfectly possible if HMG decided it was a priority.

AUKUS is all about selling Submarines to the Australians so that HMG doesn’t have to finance the investment required in UK PLC. Forward basing a U.K. SSN in Australia is just part of the deal. If the Indo Pacific isn’t a strategic priority for the U.K. then forward basing a SSN in Australia isn’t a strategic priority either.

Opv plus doesn’t exist nor when you start adding things to make it plus will it be any cheaper than what we are doing now.

When it’s done and dusted I will amazed if the T31 come in at under £400m unit.

Building five of these will not cost £2bn. https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-125.pdf

[SW1]

The RN maintains safe passage at sea where it is most beneficial to the UK. It does not need to be everywhere.

So why did RN do it previously, long after empire?

Was it because the fleet was much larger than today?

You seem to think concentrating on the euro and Atlantic areas is about BOAR reforming. Not sure why you think this but it isn’t. There is more than enough to do around the north south Atlantic, Mediterranean and Baltic to more than keep the RN busy and where it matters most to our economy.

This is what Labour intend to do.

Let’s see how it works out.

Denmark, Germany, Italy and Greece are supposedly sending escorts to the Red Sea.

Where were they six weeks ago?

No it doesnt adding non combatants ships just adds non combatant ships and removes resource and crew, tries to be all things to all people everywhere rather than concentrating in priority areas that are important to us.

It’s the priority areas plus more.

The priority areas will keep changing depending on geopolitics.

The AUKUS pack is the single most important naval technology and strategic agreement since Polaris. It builds a capability with Australia that means we don’t need to be there long term because they have the capability to work with the US to contain China as we do here with the US against Russia in a similar vein to why we set up the Royal Australian navy in the first place! SSNs are both the principle means of intelligence gathering at sea in peace and containment asset in war against high end opponents. It isn’t strategic gobbledygook it’s actually strategic rather than simple looking at the present and reacting. Short term reduction in the Atlantic for a long term security gain. More needs to be spent on submarines not less and if that means less surface fleet then less surface fleet it is.

So if it’s not about selling submarines why not just leave it to USN?

The Virginias will be taking subs away from the US fleet. Basing an Astute there will remove a SSN from the North Atlantic and building SSNs for Australia will slow down the possible expansion of the U.K. SSN fleet. How much will the U.K.’s next SSN be delayed by to sell submarines to Australia?

I hear the big statements but if the Euro Atlantic is the priority what is the required number of U.K. SSNs to achieve a satisfactory outcome? The answer will be many more than seven.

The U.K. could very easily make the investment with BAE or Rolls Royce without Australia if HMG had chosen to do so. Commissioning a SSN every two years and maintaining a fleet of 12-15 is perfectly possible if HMG decided it was a priority.

AUKUS is all about selling Submarines to the Australians so that HMG doesn’t have to finance the investment required in UK PLC. Forward basing a U.K. SSN in Australia is just part of the deal. If the Indo Pacific isn’t a strategic priority for the U.K. then forward basing a SSN in Australia isn’t a strategic priority either.

Opv plus doesn’t exist nor when you start adding things to make it plus will it be any cheaper than what we are doing now.

When it’s done and dusted I will amazed if the T31 come in at under £400m unit.

Building five of these will not cost £2bn. https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-125.pdf

Are you proposing creating a navy like we had in 1950?

I don’t know what Labour intend and don’t think they do either.

They were no where to be seen but it isn’t a sprint it’s a marathon when it comes to such patrol tasks. They can go on an awfully long time which is why it always pays to consider the priorities before jumping in with both feet.

Priority areas do change but ours haven’t changed much for many decades you can see that from where our overseas territories are and trade routes that they are on. Nor is the NATO need going anywhere anytime soon.


Yes the AUkUS deal is about sharing the defence load and sharing the technology development and cost. It is a strategic priority to get Australia up to speed in the operation and maintenance of SSNs. That’s why fwd basing an astute is required to share the load with the Americans. Getting Australia up to speed and equipped is exactly so we don’t have to keep resources there long term, the essence of security sharing with trusted partners.


Those Vard vessels are the basis for the US coast guard heritage class cutter we can argue if they should have camm in any UK vessels. The American vessels are coming in at around $700m dollars per ship and while it will be more expensive to manufacture in the states than here are they really that different to the type 31 we are currently producing in cost terms. You can read the link i posted in response to tempest what would you not have that the heritage does have?

[Tempest414]

So no matter who owns Diego Garcia the US will be able to keep its base there on a long term lease so it would be a great place for us to base any escorts , OPV's or MRSS out of to cover the Indian Ocean , Gulf , and East Africa

If it is such a great location why are we not using it now?

That is simple we don't have a patrol group in the Indian Ocean and yes we do have a escort and Bay class in the Gulf

[tomuk]

The Virginias will be taking subs away from the US fleet. Basing an Astute there will remove a SSN from the North Atlantic and building SSNs for Australia will slow down the possible expansion of the U.K. SSN fleet. How much will the U.K.’s next SSN be delayed by to sell submarines to Australia?


The U.K. could very easily make the investment with BAE or Rolls Royce without Australia if HMG had chosen to do so. Commissioning a SSN every two years and maintaining a fleet of 12-15 is perfectly possible if HMG decided it was a priority.

The whole point of AUKUS is that it speeds up SSN(R) by sharing the load, and increasing the throughput on suppliers etc. It also keeps HMG honest.
How many Astutes have we go now compared to when Switsures and Trafalgars were on stream? What see now is a result of HMGs priorities.

[tomuk]

So no matter who owns Diego Garcia the US will be able to keep its base there on a long term lease so it would be a great place for us to base any escorts , OPV's or MRSS out of to cover the Indian Ocean , Gulf , and East Africa

If it is such a great location why are we not using it now?

That is simple we don't have a patrol group in the Indian Ocean and yes we do have a escort and Bay class in the Gulf

But we've invested in Duqm. Wouldn't any Indian Ocean patrol group be based there?

[donald_of_tokyo]

…
Those Vard vessels are the basis for the US coast guard heritage class cutter we can argue if they should have camm in any UK vessels. The American vessels are coming in at around $700m dollars per ship and while it will be more expensive to manufacture in the states than here are they really that different to the type 31 we are currently producing in cost terms. You can read the link i posted in response to tempest what would you not have that the heritage does have?

Heritage class is 560M GBP in average cost. As (my personal impression) US ship build is x1.5 expensive than UK, it will be 350-400M GBP average (my guess).

Reasonable, is my first impression. Her damage control level is high. So so level ESM/ECM, expensive Nulka decoys, 3D radar, long endurance. Actually, it is believed to be the mother design of original Arrowhead 120 (not 140) of Babcock. (Actually Babcock was contracted its detailed design by Eastal.)

I agree the class has many aspects than an OPV. They are corvettes of US, for me.

This in turn tells us that, the OPV+, if so so armed, with some damage control to “fight”, is a “T31 without CAMM.” Therefore I insist, RN has already ordered the OPv+, but with much better AAW capability.

It differs from the OPV+ discussed here (which I think is more Holland and BAM), but T31 can fight while the OPV+ must escape from the theater (and/or ask for escorts) when it gets hot.

[SW1]

…
Those Vard vessels are the basis for the US coast guard heritage class cutter we can argue if they should have camm in any UK vessels. The American vessels are coming in at around $700m dollars per ship and while it will be more expensive to manufacture in the states than here are they really that different to the type 31 we are currently producing in cost terms. You can read the link i posted in response to tempest what would you not have that the heritage does have?

Heritage class is 560M GBP in average cost. As (my personal impression) US ship build is x1.5 expensive than UK, it will be 350-400M GBP average (my guess).

Reasonable, is my first impression. Her damage control level is high. So so level ESM/ECM, expensive Nulka decoys, 3D radar, long endurance. Actually, it is believed to be the mother design of original Arrowhead 120 (not 140) of Babcock. (Actually Babcock was contracted its detailed design by Eastal.)

I agree the class has many aspects than an OPV. They are corvettes of US, for me.

This in turn tells us that, the OPV+, if so so armed, with some damage control to “fight”, is a “T31 without CAMM.” Therefore I insist, RN has already ordered the OPv+, but with much better AAW capability.

It differs from the OPV+ discussed here (which I think is more Holland and BAM), but T31 can fight while the OPV+ must escape from the theater (and/or ask for escorts) when it gets hot.

I think the Holland would be quite expensive if built today it was about 120m euros with the hull built in Romania in 2007. But also quite capable.

I would disagree that it wasn’t what some are proposing as the opv+ because tempest spec was “I think we should be able to build a 105 to 110 by 16 meter OPV with a cheap 3D radar good CMS crew of 45 with 1 x 57mm and 2 times 8 round LMM launches plus a hangar and flight deck for SH-60 or Wildcat”

Which to me very much sounded identical to what the US coastguard are buying.

[Repulse]

I personally think we need to go back to the requirements. IMO the OPVs are primarily there to protect UK oversea territories and participate in low level regional activities (exercises, diplomacy, anti piracy / drugs and training). It’s about a low level presence which capabilities that matches the role and the local area threat level.

Whilst I see the need for a larger gun for self defence against the proliferation of UAVs/USVs, perhaps a modest upgrade to the radar and even nice to have small hanger - we aren’t talking Heritage class nor anything similar. The damage control of a B2 is sufficient, we are expecting these ships to withdrawal gracefully from anything larger than fast boat with an RPG / machine guns.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the roaming nature of the two EoS OPVs is causing the confusion. I would personally think about giving each a named forward base - which for me would be Diego Garcia and the other somewhere to cover the Pacific region, either New Zealand or a friendly Pacific Island. They can still do what they do now, but it will link them both to a core requirement (to protect UK oversea territories).

[Poiuytrewq]

Are you proposing creating a navy like we had in 1950?

I am suggesting that RN needs to add mass and I have laid out how that could be achieved by the end of the decade.

I don’t know what Labour intend and don’t think they do either.

Labour will focus on job creation, for good and bad.

They were no where to be seen but it isn’t a sprint it’s a marathon when it comes to such patrol tasks. They can go on an awfully long time which is why it always pays to consider the priorities before jumping in with both feet.

Priority areas do change but ours haven’t changed much for many decades you can see that from where our overseas territories are and trade routes that they are on. Nor is the NATO need going anywhere anytime soon.

Look at the resources used for one choke point in the Red Sea. Could RN deal with two or three of these hot spots simultaneously? The obvious answer is no and it is also clear that many other “allied” nations will be slow to react or fail to respond.

The T31 is not cheap any longer and it will be nearly 10 years before any second batch can start to commission ever if ordered without delay.

The only way to add mass in the next years is a class of more capable OPVs.

Yes the AUkUS deal is about sharing the defence load and sharing the technology development and cost. It is a strategic priority to get Australia up to speed in the operation and maintenance of SSNs. That’s why fwd basing an astute is required to share the load with the Americans. Getting Australia up to speed and equipped is exactly so we don’t have to keep resources there long term, the essence of security sharing with trusted partners.

AUKUS is great but it has consequences, one of which will be a reduction of U.K. SSN presence in the North Atlantic and another is the possible slow down in the pace of the production of the U.K. SSN replacement program.

I am not arguing against AUKUS I am simply pointing out that if it is not strategically important for the U.K. to operate OPVs, escorts, the CSG or LSG(S) in the Indo Pacific then it certainly cannot be argued convincingly that forward basing a SSN in Australia is a strategic priority for the U.K. considering the low numbers available.

You can’t have it both ways.

Those Vard vessels are the basis for the US coast guard heritage class cutter we can argue if they should have camm in any UK vessels. The American vessels are coming in at around $700m dollars per ship and while it will be more expensive to manufacture in the states than here are they really that different to the type 31 we are currently producing in cost terms. You can read the link i posted in response to tempest what would you not have that the heritage does have?

Forget comparisons with US shipbuilding they will totally distort the rationality of the discussion.

The best example is the Vard designed OPVs built for Ireland at Appledore. https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-090.pdf

This is a much better example.

[Poiuytrewq]

The Virginias will be taking subs away from the US fleet. Basing an Astute there will remove a SSN from the North Atlantic and building SSNs for Australia will slow down the possible expansion of the U.K. SSN fleet. How much will the U.K.’s next SSN be delayed by to sell submarines to Australia?


The U.K. could very easily make the investment with BAE or Rolls Royce without Australia if HMG had chosen to do so. Commissioning a SSN every two years and maintaining a fleet of 12-15 is perfectly possible if HMG decided it was a priority.

The whole point of AUKUS is that it speeds up SSN(R) by sharing the load, and increasing the throughput on suppliers etc. It also keeps HMG honest.
How many Astutes have we go now compared to when Switsures and Trafalgars were on stream? What see now is a result of HMGs priorities.

It should not require a deal such as AUKUS to ensure that HMG invests properly in sufficient numbers of SSN to meet the U.K. national security requirements.

If it was prioritised the UK could easily have 12-15 SSN. Its cost cutting thst precludes that not the lack of a deal like AUKUS?

Are you suggesting that if AUKUS hadn’t of happened the U.K. would not have invested in replacements for the Astute class?

[SW1]

Are you proposing creating a navy like we had in 1950?

I am suggesting that RN needs to add mass and I have laid out how that could be achieved by the end of the decade.

I don’t know what Labour intend and don’t think they do either.

Labour will focus on job creation, for good and bad.

They were no where to be seen but it isn’t a sprint it’s a marathon when it comes to such patrol tasks. They can go on an awfully long time which is why it always pays to consider the priorities before jumping in with both feet.

Priority areas do change but ours haven’t changed much for many decades you can see that from where our overseas territories are and trade routes that they are on. Nor is the NATO need going anywhere anytime soon.

Look at the resources used for one choke point in the Red Sea. Could RN deal with two or three of these hot spots simultaneously? The obvious answer is no and it is also clear that many other “allied” nations will be slow to react or fail to respond.

The T31 is not cheap any longer and it will be nearly 10 years before any second batch can start to commission ever if ordered without delay.

The only way to add mass in the next years is a class of more capable OPVs.

Yes the AUkUS deal is about sharing the defence load and sharing the technology development and cost. It is a strategic priority to get Australia up to speed in the operation and maintenance of SSNs. That’s why fwd basing an astute is required to share the load with the Americans. Getting Australia up to speed and equipped is exactly so we don’t have to keep resources there long term, the essence of security sharing with trusted partners.

AUKUS is great but it has consequences, one of which will be a reduction of U.K. SSN presence in the North Atlantic and another is the possible slow down in the pace of the production of the U.K. SSN replacement program.

I am not arguing against AUKUS I am simply pointing out that if it is not strategically important for the U.K. to operate OPVs, escorts, the CSG or LSG(S) in the Indo Pacific then it certainly cannot be argued convincingly that forward basing a SSN in Australia is a strategic priority for the U.K. considering the low numbers available.

You can’t have it both ways.

Those Vard vessels are the basis for the US coast guard heritage class cutter we can argue if they should have camm in any UK vessels. The American vessels are coming in at around $700m dollars per ship and while it will be more expensive to manufacture in the states than here are they really that different to the type 31 we are currently producing in cost terms. You can read the link i posted in response to tempest what would you not have that the heritage does have?

Forget comparisons with US shipbuilding they will totally distort the rationality of the discussion.

The best example is the Vard designed OPVs built for Ireland at Appledore. https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-090.pdf

This is a much better example.

Does it need to add mass? And if it does are opv mass? Possibly the first though more likely infrastructure and people rather than equipment. And in the second it doesn’t.

Has there been any budget increase for type 31? I seen aspirations of adding things later but no budget increase that I’ve seen except for a possible ~£50m around inflation risk.


Yes it can. The AUKUS deployment and deployments of opvs carriers and whatever else are completely different with completely different aims. One is about building up a similar capability in close allied country so we don’t have to be there and of benefit to us industrially. The other is showboating without the capacity to back it up.

If you want to build a Samuel Beckett great they maybe a gd replacement for the 3 batch 1 rivers around the uk and that about it.

[Tempest414]

So no matter who owns Diego Garcia the US will be able to keep its base there on a long term lease so it would be a great place for us to base any escorts , OPV's or MRSS out of to cover the Indian Ocean , Gulf , and East Africa

If it is such a great location why are we not using it now?

That is simple we don't have a patrol group in the Indian Ocean and yes we do have a escort and Bay class in the Gulf

But we've invested in Duqm. Wouldn't any Indian Ocean patrol group be based there?

I have said up thread that any group would likely operate from there given the investment

[Repulse]

So no matter who owns Diego Garcia the US will be able to keep its base there on a long term lease so it would be a great place for us to base any escorts , OPV's or MRSS out of to cover the Indian Ocean , Gulf , and East Africa

If it is such a great location why are we not using it now?

That is simple we don't have a patrol group in the Indian Ocean and yes we do have a escort and Bay class in the Gulf

But we've invested in Duqm. Wouldn't any Indian Ocean patrol group be based there?

I have said up thread that any group would likely operate from there given the investment

I thought Duqm was a logistics base, like Singapore, rather than a forward operating base?

[Tempest414]

…
Those Vard vessels are the basis for the US coast guard heritage class cutter we can argue if they should have camm in any UK vessels. The American vessels are coming in at around $700m dollars per ship and while it will be more expensive to manufacture in the states than here are they really that different to the type 31 we are currently producing in cost terms. You can read the link i posted in response to tempest what would you not have that the heritage does have?

Heritage class is 560M GBP in average cost. As (my personal impression) US ship build is x1.5 expensive than UK, it will be 350-400M GBP average (my guess).

Reasonable, is my first impression. Her damage control level is high. So so level ESM/ECM, expensive Nulka decoys, 3D radar, long endurance. Actually, it is believed to be the mother design of original Arrowhead 120 (not 140) of Babcock. (Actually Babcock was contracted its detailed design by Eastal.)

I agree the class has many aspects than an OPV. They are corvettes of US, for me.

This in turn tells us that, the OPV+, if so so armed, with some damage control to “fight”, is a “T31 without CAMM.” Therefore I insist, RN has already ordered the OPv+, but with much better AAW capability.

It differs from the OPV+ discussed here (which I think is more Holland and BAM), but T31 can fight while the OPV+ must escape from the theater (and/or ask for escorts) when it gets hot.

I think the Holland would be quite expensive if built today it was about 120m euros with the hull built in Romania in 2007. But also quite capable.

I would disagree that it wasn’t what some are proposing as the opv+ because tempest spec was “I think we should be able to build a 105 to 110 by 16 meter OPV with a cheap 3D radar good CMS crew of 45 with 1 x 57mm and 2 times 8 round LMM launches plus a hangar and flight deck for SH-60 or Wildcat”

Which to me very much sounded identical to what the US coastguard are buying.

to be clear I am thinking of the SAAB 1X radar which we know cost about 2 million a pop and the Navy is testing right now plus a 57mm gun and Peregrine UAV also both about to enter service I believe these fitted to a 100 meter OPV hull should cost no more than a 160 million a pop