Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1244
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:06
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:40
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:00 To be clear both of these ships have working core RFA crews of 24 to which the RN mission crews are added in theory these mission crew can be moved to other ships if and when needed
I’ve seen 57 RFA crew documented for Stirling Castle
Is that single or double crew figure
I think that is the RN specialist amount.

Pte. James Frazer
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pte. James Frazer »

SW1 wrote:
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:43
SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 09:31 Would you be prepared to lose a Type 26 frigate in a minefield?
No I wouldn’t, but this whole conversation is about operating off board systems in high threat environments, not to purposely sail through a minefield.
They have to be relatively close and are generally the first ship thru. If you’re not expecting the unexpected and acknowledge the possibility you might miss one, you have got to be prepared for the ship doing the standoff mcm will be lost by design.
Presumably that's why RN has reinvested in USV sweep. ASV hunters go through first, followed by ASV sweep to (hopefully) mop up any 'lurkers' before either higher value mothership or anything else tiptoes through...
These users liked the author Pte. James Frazer for the post:
new guy

Pte. James Frazer
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pte. James Frazer »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Changing the approach is always inefficient.

- I see no good explanation why RN shall sell 5 T31. RN has such "tier-2" level tasks to do, KIPION. NATO fleet contribution and/or FRE tasks will be also good for T31. If now is 2015 and T31 is not yet there, hoping for more T26 and banning T31 is one idea, I agree (actually, I myself was on that side). But the small difference between the two-plans cannot justify the inefficiency introduced by selling T31s after build. If NATO navies are not providing enough tier-1 assets, ask them to do it. France, Italy and Spain has some, in my view.

- I also see many good reason to utilize T26's mission bay. Taking it off makes nothing. Hoping for "if not be located there, from the beginning" is not bad (or understandable), but it is the past (too late). The demerit of having a mission bay on T26 can be easily compensated by actively using it. And, as T26 is there with mission bay, RN must do it. There are many tasks for T26 which can get some benefits from operating 1 or 2 USVs from the mission bay; littoral ASW, sentry against fast boats, mine-field early warning (let's just find it and avoid it) and more.

- Having 3-4 simple MHC LSV (and an OSV) is also very very reasonable. I actually see no justification of banning them. As I said, T26 or T32 or T83 having capability to operate USV is nothing bad, but it surely must be associated with cheap-to-operate and large-capacity LSV/OSVs. 99% of the MCM task are "clearing the field AFTER the war". See what KIPION MCM is doing. In all wars, in the past, and in the future, need for "enduring mine-clearance operations AFTER wars" are always there. So, simple MCH LSV/OSV is surely needed. It is must.


Overall, yes I can propose many alternative to the current RN plan, "what if". But, I also think the current RN plan is still on good position (thanks to the flexibility of the current plan). Balance is the key. Rebooting/redoing is very inefficient, and still I think the current plan is valid, effective, and efficient.
Well said sir!

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4707
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

new guy wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:07
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:06
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:40
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:00 To be clear both of these ships have working core RFA crews of 24 to which the RN mission crews are added in theory these mission crew can be moved to other ships if and when needed
I’ve seen 57 RFA crew documented for Stirling Castle
Is that single or double crew figure
I think that is the RN specialist amount.
Nope, that’s quoted as 43. Source: Guide to the Royal Navy 2024
”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: 5776
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Pte. James Frazer wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:14
SW1 wrote:
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:43
SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 09:31 Would you be prepared to lose a Type 26 frigate in a minefield?
No I wouldn’t, but this whole conversation is about operating off board systems in high threat environments, not to purposely sail through a minefield.
They have to be relatively close and are generally the first ship thru. If you’re not expecting the unexpected and acknowledge the possibility you might miss one, you have got to be prepared for the ship doing the standoff mcm will be lost by design.
Presumably that's why RN has reinvested in USV sweep. ASV hunters go through first, followed by ASV sweep to (hopefully) mop up any 'lurkers' before either higher value mothership or anything else tiptoes through...
Presumably it’s better after the usv have been thru regardless of how many times it would be considered prudent that the first manned ship thru is the Mcm mother ship as apposed to the 1b pound asw escort.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4707
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 14:07 Changing the approach is always inefficient.
However, sticking with the wrong approach is just dumb IMO
- I see no good explanation why RN shall sell 5 T31. RN has such "tier-2" level tasks to do, KIPION. NATO fleet contribution and/or FRE tasks will be also good for T31. If now is 2015 and T31 is not yet there, hoping for more T26 and banning T31 is one idea, I agree (actually, I myself was on that side). But the small difference between the two-plans cannot justify the inefficiency introduced by selling T31s after build. If NATO navies are not providing enough tier-1 assets, ask them to do it. France, Italy and Spain has some, in my view.
Firstly, France, Italy and Spain should and will do what is right for them, we can try to persuade them but each have their own priorities and more importantly ship building they will always chose to support. We need to decide what’s right for the UK, just being another European country shouldn’t be the default.

Second, there are many good reasons to sell ships that do not meet priority requirements. The main ones being ongoing costs and crew.

Thirdly, I think it’s time to stop Kipion. Having a first tier warship on singleton deployments perhaps alongside an amphibious ship in the wider region is more appropriate. Equally, there is no value IMO to just add more of the same to the NATO standing groups. The FRE is supposed to be our on alert response to global events, we should have our best ready, and using OPVs and do the bulk of escorting non NATO ships through our EEZ.

I’ve explained a few pages back how with a fleet of 16-18 tier one ships you could meet our real priority requirements.

I think it’s clear that I have differing views from everyone else, that’s the good thing about debate and discussion, but we’ve probably been around this one too many times now. I haven’t been persuaded to change my view and nor have others, the RN is on a course that I think is wrong, but none of us influence that.
”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

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5604
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:27
new guy wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:07
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:06
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:40
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:00 To be clear both of these ships have working core RFA crews of 24 to which the RN mission crews are added in theory these mission crew can be moved to other ships if and when needed
I’ve seen 57 RFA crew documented for Stirling Castle
Is that single or double crew figure
I think that is the RN specialist amount.
Nope, that’s quoted as 43. Source: Guide to the Royal Navy 2024
Again is that single , 1.5 or double crewed figure

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4707
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 17:02
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:27
new guy wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:07
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:06
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:40
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:00 To be clear both of these ships have working core RFA crews of 24 to which the RN mission crews are added in theory these mission crew can be moved to other ships if and when needed
I’ve seen 57 RFA crew documented for Stirling Castle
Is that single or double crew figure
I think that is the RN specialist amount.
Nope, that’s quoted as 43. Source: Guide to the Royal Navy 2024
Again is that single , 1.5 or double crewed figure
Doesn’t say, but all the other numbers are single
”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

Pte. James Frazer
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pte. James Frazer »

SW1 wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:14
SW1 wrote:
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:43
SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 09:31 Would you be prepared to lose a Type 26 frigate in a minefield?
No I wouldn’t, but this whole conversation is about operating off board systems in high threat environments, not to purposely sail through a minefield.
They have to be relatively close and are generally the first ship thru. If you’re not expecting the unexpected and acknowledge the possibility you might miss one, you have got to be prepared for the ship doing the standoff mcm will be lost by design.
Presumably that's why RN has reinvested in USV sweep. ASV hunters go through first, followed by ASV sweep to (hopefully) mop up any 'lurkers' before either higher value mothership or anything else tiptoes through...
Presumably it’s better after the usv have been thru regardless of how many times it would be considered prudent that the first manned ship thru is the Mcm mother ship as apposed to the 1b pound asw escort.
That was my view upthread....better a £0.5bn (ish) self-escort mothership than the crown jewels.

Perhaps to rake over some lukewarm coals....problem with a MCMV mothership is it's not geared for expeditionary 'fast reaction' CSG ops. So a MCMV would need to be pre-positioned (forward based). So Day 1 scenario it's toast....unless you forward base some escorts to provide the defensive umbrella. Create a EoS 'combined arms squadron'.....?

OPV+s have many of the same compromises. We compromised with TOBA, and got some 'unwanted' hulls that have exceeded expectations. Yet people here want to bring them back to UK waters to replace them with T31 (RN) an entirely new class (OPV+) just because replacing RB1s is on a wall chart.

I'm waiting for the "but, but it's in RN planning in the Defence Command Paper" replies. Go figure...


Pte. James Frazer
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pte. James Frazer »

Repulse wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 14:07 Changing the approach is always inefficient.
However, sticking with the wrong approach is just dumb IMO
- I see no good explanation why RN shall sell 5 T31. RN has such "tier-2" level tasks to do, KIPION. NATO fleet contribution and/or FRE tasks will be also good for T31. If now is 2015 and T31 is not yet there, hoping for more T26 and banning T31 is one idea, I agree (actually, I myself was on that side). But the small difference between the two-plans cannot justify the inefficiency introduced by selling T31s after build. If NATO navies are not providing enough tier-1 assets, ask them to do it. France, Italy and Spain has some, in my view.
Firstly, France, Italy and Spain should and will do what is right for them, we can try to persuade them but each have their own priorities and more importantly ship building they will always chose to support. We need to decide what’s right for the UK, just being another European country shouldn’t be the default.

Second, there are many good reasons to sell ships that do not meet priority requirements. The main ones being ongoing costs and crew.

Thirdly, I think it’s time to stop Kipion. Having a first tier warship on singleton deployments perhaps alongside an amphibious ship in the wider region is more appropriate. Equally, there is no value IMO to just add more of the same to the NATO standing groups. The FRE is supposed to be our on alert response to global events, we should have our best ready, and using OPVs and do the bulk of escorting non NATO ships through our EEZ.

I’ve explained a few pages back how with a fleet of 16-18 tier one ships you could meet our real priority requirements.

I think it’s clear that I have differing views from everyone else, that’s the good thing about debate and discussion, but we’ve probably been around this one too many times now. I haven’t been persuaded to change my view and nor have others, the RN is on a course that I think is wrong, but none of us influence that.
Your views are valued and cogent, if not precisely mine
These users liked the author Pte. James Frazer for the post (total 3):
RepulseJensywargame_insomniac

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5604
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 17:04
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 17:02
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:27
new guy wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:07
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:06
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:40
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:00 To be clear both of these ships have working core RFA crews of 24 to which the RN mission crews are added in theory these mission crew can be moved to other ships if and when needed
I’ve seen 57 RFA crew documented for Stirling Castle
Is that single or double crew figure
I think that is the RN specialist amount.
Nope, that’s quoted as 43. Source: Guide to the Royal Navy 2024
Again is that single , 1.5 or double crewed figure
Doesn’t say, but all the other numbers are single
The figure I saw quoted (24) came from Warship IFR I think your figure maybe 1.5 crew I might be wrong

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1244
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Pte. James Frazer wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 17:10
SW1 wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:14
SW1 wrote:
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:43
SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 09:31 Would you be prepared to lose a Type 26 frigate in a minefield?
No I wouldn’t, but this whole conversation is about operating off board systems in high threat environments, not to purposely sail through a minefield.
They have to be relatively close and are generally the first ship thru. If you’re not expecting the unexpected and acknowledge the possibility you might miss one, you have got to be prepared for the ship doing the standoff mcm will be lost by design.
Presumably that's why RN has reinvested in USV sweep. ASV hunters go through first, followed by ASV sweep to (hopefully) mop up any 'lurkers' before either higher value mothership or anything else tiptoes through...
Presumably it’s better after the usv have been thru regardless of how many times it would be considered prudent that the first manned ship thru is the Mcm mother ship as apposed to the 1b pound asw escort.
That was my view upthread....better a £0.5bn (ish) self-escort mothership than the crown jewels.

Perhaps to rake over some lukewarm coals....problem with a MCMV mothership is it's not geared for expeditionary 'fast reaction' CSG ops. So a MCMV would need to be pre-positioned (forward based). So Day 1 scenario it's toast....unless you forward base some escorts to provide the defensive umbrella. Create a EoS 'combined arms squadron'.....?

OPV+s have many of the same compromises. We compromised with TOBA, and got some 'unwanted' hulls that have exceeded expectations. Yet people here want to bring them back to UK waters to replace them with T31 (RN) an entirely new class (OPV+) just because replacing RB1s is on a wall chart.

I'm waiting for the "but, but it's in RN planning in the Defence Command Paper" replies. Go figure...
You ain't doing any assults with MCMV's. It takes a lot of time to go MCM operations.
These users liked the author new guy for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:50

Second, there are many good reasons to sell ships that do not meet priority requirements. The main ones being ongoing costs and crew.

If we are really allowed to do this I have one or two in mind if we can…..

Pte. James Frazer
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 13 Nov 2023, 20:12

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pte. James Frazer »

new guy wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 17:10
SW1 wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:14
SW1 wrote:
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 11:43
SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 09:31 Would you be prepared to lose a Type 26 frigate in a minefield?
No I wouldn’t, but this whole conversation is about operating off board systems in high threat environments, not to purposely sail through a minefield.
They have to be relatively close and are generally the first ship thru. If you’re not expecting the unexpected and acknowledge the possibility you might miss one, you have got to be prepared for the ship doing the standoff mcm will be lost by design.
Presumably that's why RN has reinvested in USV sweep. ASV hunters go through first, followed by ASV sweep to (hopefully) mop up any 'lurkers' before either higher value mothership or anything else tiptoes through...
Presumably it’s better after the usv have been thru regardless of how many times it would be considered prudent that the first manned ship thru is the Mcm mother ship as apposed to the 1b pound asw escort.
That was my view upthread....better a £0.5bn (ish) self-escort mothership than the crown jewels.

Perhaps to rake over some lukewarm coals....problem with a MCMV mothership is it's not geared for expeditionary 'fast reaction' CSG ops. So a MCMV would need to be pre-positioned (forward based). So Day 1 scenario it's toast....unless you forward base some escorts to provide the defensive umbrella. Create a EoS 'combined arms squadron'.....?

OPV+s have many of the same compromises. We compromised with TOBA, and got some 'unwanted' hulls that have exceeded expectations. Yet people here want to bring them back to UK waters to replace them with T31 (RN) an entirely new class (OPV+) just because replacing RB1s is on a wall chart.

I'm waiting for the "but, but it's in RN planning in the Defence Command Paper" replies. Go figure...
You ain't doing any assults with MCMV's. It takes a lot of time to go MCM operations.
Move on. Assaults are history.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:50
Thirdly, I think it’s time to stop Kipion. Having a first tier warship on singleton deployments perhaps alongside an amphibious ship in the wider region is more appropriate.
I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.

In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.

The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Repulse

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4707
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 19:13
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:50
Thirdly, I think it’s time to stop Kipion. Having a first tier warship on singleton deployments perhaps alongside an amphibious ship in the wider region is more appropriate.
I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.

In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.

The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
Yeah, sea control ship makes sense, my tier one is my dream of a RN version of an all rounder Arleigh Burke class, but failing that a T26 isn’t bad.

It feels like fantasy, but who knows… :)
”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: 4707
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 17:40
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:50

Second, there are many good reasons to sell ships that do not meet priority requirements. The main ones being ongoing costs and crew.

If we are really allowed to do this I have one or two in mind if we can…..
I suspect they are the two big ones that I would put in my tier one must reduce reliance on the USN bucket :)
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
SW1SD67
”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: 5776
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 19:56
SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 19:13
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:50
Thirdly, I think it’s time to stop Kipion. Having a first tier warship on singleton deployments perhaps alongside an amphibious ship in the wider region is more appropriate.
I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.

In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.

The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
Yeah, sea control ship makes sense, my tier one is my dream of a RN version of an all rounder Arleigh Burke class, but failing that a T26 isn’t bad.

It feels like fantasy, but who knows… :)
I was thinking an iver huitfeldt with a tail.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4076
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 20:29 I was thinking an iver huitfeldt with a tail.
Sounds like an 80% solution.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
SW1

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5604
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 19:13
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:50
Thirdly, I think it’s time to stop Kipion. Having a first tier warship on singleton deployments perhaps alongside an amphibious ship in the wider region is more appropriate.
I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.

In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.

The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
This is my point of having the 3 x patrol groups one in the Indian Ocean and one in both the North & South Atlantic using T-31s. A T-31 with Sea Fire radar a HMT plus a Sea Lancer container when needed would work well

I don't think it is as far away as we think we are just using the wrong ships in a suck and see way. Right now we have or should have

EoS = 1 x Escort , LRG/S , 2 x RB2 , MCM
South Atlantic = 2 x RB2 , 1 x Ice patrol ship

So to move to having 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and MCM EoS is not that bigger jump likewise to have 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and the IPS covering the Med & South Atlantic is not a big jump in fact we could have this by 2030

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 29 Feb 2024, 10:12
SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 19:13
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:50
Thirdly, I think it’s time to stop Kipion. Having a first tier warship on singleton deployments perhaps alongside an amphibious ship in the wider region is more appropriate.
I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.

In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.

The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
This is my point of having the 3 x patrol groups one in the Indian Ocean and one in both the North & South Atlantic using T-31s. A T-31 with Sea Fire radar a HMT plus a Sea Lancer container when needed would work well

I don't think it is as far away as we think we are just using the wrong ships in a suck and see way. Right now we have or should have

EoS = 1 x Escort , LRG/S , 2 x RB2 , MCM
South Atlantic = 2 x RB2 , 1 x Ice patrol ship

So to move to having 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and MCM EoS is not that bigger jump likewise to have 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and the IPS covering the Med & South Atlantic is not a big jump in fact we could have this by 2030
We are miles away. A vessel capable of embarking the required aviation and small boats to move and provide fire support and screen to at least a company of marines/sf plus the multiple purpose escort required to attack targets would be a complete sea change in how aviation is allocated and scaled and the ships equipped to do it. Opvs wouldn’t even be in the conversation. You would need to start again on the surface fleet in its totality which is why imo it’s completely fantasy as a concept now.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5604
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 29 Feb 2024, 11:57
Tempest414 wrote: 29 Feb 2024, 10:12
SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 19:13
Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 16:50
Thirdly, I think it’s time to stop Kipion. Having a first tier warship on singleton deployments perhaps alongside an amphibious ship in the wider region is more appropriate.
I find this concept interesting, in that if we weren’t starting form where we are I would suggested this had much merit. I wouldn’t have phrased the amphib as a pure amphib more of a sea control fighter and probably with two escorts I would described as all rounders rather than specialists ones and in more areas than just east of suez.

In the world we find ourselves there aim being the equivalent of what the army call holding ground or perhaps better put denial of ground to the enemy only with water on top of the ground. Along those lines I thought it interesting than the French had a mistral in the eastern Mediterranean and one off west Africa.

The concept is so detached from where we are now it’s pure fantasy though.
This is my point of having the 3 x patrol groups one in the Indian Ocean and one in both the North & South Atlantic using T-31s. A T-31 with Sea Fire radar a HMT plus a Sea Lancer container when needed would work well

I don't think it is as far away as we think we are just using the wrong ships in a suck and see way. Right now we have or should have

EoS = 1 x Escort , LRG/S , 2 x RB2 , MCM
South Atlantic = 2 x RB2 , 1 x Ice patrol ship

So to move to having 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and MCM EoS is not that bigger jump likewise to have 2 x Escorts , 1 x MRSS , 2 x RB2's and the IPS covering the Med & South Atlantic is not a big jump in fact we could have this by 2030
We are miles away. A vessel capable of embarking the required aviation and small boats to move and provide fire support and screen to at least a company of marines/sf plus the multiple purpose escort required to attack targets would be a complete sea change in how aviation is allocated and scaled and the ships equipped to do it. Opvs wouldn’t even be in the conversation. You would need to start again on the surface fleet in its totality which is why imo it’s completely fantasy as a concept now.
Two things need to happen 1) MRSS needs to be a 210 by 38 Meter flattop LPD next NMH needs to be a order for 60+ units with folding rotors

stepping forward in small steps EoS the 2 x RB's stay where they are doing the job they are doing we also keep LRG/S there as well by 2030 we have 2 x T-31's deploy to the region and by 2035 the first new MRSS deploys to the region to replace the ASS & Bay . At the same time we deploy 2 x T-31s to cover the Med and South Atlantic along with the 2 x RB2's and IPS when the MRSS replaces the Bay EoS it redolys to this region and in turn is replaced by a MRSS

The RB2's in these regions have a important low level job to do day to day and imo could host USV MCM/ ASW ops as part of a group if needed plus T-31's with 32 Mk-41s and 16 NSM could conduct local area Air defence plus anti ship and Land Attack with TLAM

Markam
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 22 Mar 2024, 13:40
Japan

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by Markam »

I was browsing Wikipedia and the Japanese entry of the Mogami class frigate had a neat graph comparing ships that are similar in performance, and I did a quick translation. Includes the "New FFM" Japan are developing as a Batch 2 of the Mogami for a total of 24 ships, apparently all 24 to be completed by 2028.

I wanted to add another row to include prices but did not get around to it. The batch 2 Frigate has 32 cells VLS to the 16 of Mogami (which aren't even equipped to the first 4 built yet), and it is a bit bigger. Expected to cost $1.15b USD for the first 2 ($575mil each, or £458mil). Also, could use some rows for sensors and ASW capabilities.

I guess technically speaking the New FFM will have more missiles as their anti ship missiles are seperate to the VLS while the Type 31 will use VLS for a variety of missiles. The single RAM launcher for CIWS is however a bit weak I would say.

Image
These users liked the author Markam for the post (total 3):
bobpnew guyNickC

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4707
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

https://www.navylookout.com/the-factors ... ace-fleet/

Nothing new, just a reminder of the challenges and the capabilities being dropped without replacement especially minor warships
”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

Jdam
Member
Posts: 934
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jdam »

We really getting the 31's in service before the 26's? :eh:

Post Reply