Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 18:34
Repulse wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 15:54]I actually don't disagree with your high end argument.

I'm arguing that you can turn T31 into a pretty strong local area AAW/ASuW frigate/escort (a damn site better than a T23 GP) and task group goalkeeper/potentially networked missile silo.

A silk purse from a sow's ear.

I also believe that high end MCM will require more than an 85m UxV mothership, whether commercial PSV derivative or bespoke 'City Class' style design because we don't have the 'mass' to escort those into harms way.

Hence why I think an A140 MNP style T32 self escorting UxV mothership meets your high end argument for MCM and able to be re-rolled to littoral multistatic ASW, RM raiding.....
Don’t really want to discuss upgrading the T31, we’ve done that to death and it’s all speculation without funding.

Agree on MCM that the answer is not a single platform, rather than multiple platforms that have hybrid roles dependent on the specific requirement being fulfilled (and reflecting the threat level of that requirement). Whatever the answer however, the RN should not give up its position in the top tier of MCM.

What in your view would a T32 have that a T26 does not?
Rather what wouldn't it have.

Not a 5", not a MT30, fancy gearbox, electric drive nor other gold plated T26 ASW noise abatement measures to pipework etc.

So would have features: Central mission bay certainly, stern ramp possibly, Mk41 VLS, 57mm & 40mm, hull mounted mine avoidance radar a requirement, deagaussing as required, main engine & generator rafting/active mounts/sound abatement enclosure etc. ideally. I'd be looking for that on a A140 MNP derivative at (stab) ~ £400-450m/unit cost.

With its mission bay T26 could certainly do the stand-off mission with ARCIMS, but should it at ~ £850m/unit? That's overkill to me. They're precious and need to be kept out of minefields for TAPS, High North/Atlantic, CSG.
Up to date cost of the Type 26 B2's

T-26B2 contract 4.2 billion Nov 2022
MOD order for 5 Mk-45 MIFS 181 million Feb 2023
MOD order 2150 sonars 30 million June 2023

This makes the unit cost of a Type 26B2 882 million we need to wait and find out if the £100 million MOD order for CAMM was for all 8 ships or just the first 3 ships but if it was for all 8 it would make the unit cost of a Type 26B2 894 million

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: 27 Feb 2024, 14:36
Any UxV mothership needs to be substantially self escorting, imo, and that means more than a 40mm/57mm gun as proposed by Aitken of BMT, in his RINA paper of 2018 that someone referenced.

Otherwise the 'Channel stand-off' UxV mothership (as defined) needs an escort and you're then into 'Area Standoff' task groups.

The threats have got more complex and denser since Mr. Aitken wrote his justification for a 'City Class' esque 85m MCMV mothership.

Imo.
MCMV's usually move in task groups. Look at how NATOMCMMG1&2, Kipion, or just general, Especially in wartime. They are there to make way for the main group after all.
Of-course, SHORAD I approve off, be it 40mm or LMM turrets.
However, that doesn't mean you need to:

a) Buy a 3x more expensive to purchase and operate vessel.
b) Hinder an escort by trying to add or fit on 30 meters length of work deck space.
You've got a slow underarmed 'single role' MCMV/Hydrographic Survey vessel with a secondary benign patrol capability...I.e. MHPC. It needs a £400m + escort (or greater) to prevent it being an easy target.

I just prefer the greater utility and survivability of a 'GP frigate' with offboard UxVs for MCM etc./littoral ASW contribution over the alternative.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pte. James Frazer »

Tempest414 wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 18:34
Repulse wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 15:54]I actually don't disagree with your high end argument.

I'm arguing that you can turn T31 into a pretty strong local area AAW/ASuW frigate/escort (a damn site better than a T23 GP) and task group goalkeeper/potentially networked missile silo.

A silk purse from a sow's ear.

I also believe that high end MCM will require more than an 85m UxV mothership, whether commercial PSV derivative or bespoke 'City Class' style design because we don't have the 'mass' to escort those into harms way.

Hence why I think an A140 MNP style T32 self escorting UxV mothership meets your high end argument for MCM and able to be re-rolled to littoral multistatic ASW, RM raiding.....
Don’t really want to discuss upgrading the T31, we’ve done that to death and it’s all speculation without funding.

Agree on MCM that the answer is not a single platform, rather than multiple platforms that have hybrid roles dependent on the specific requirement being fulfilled (and reflecting the threat level of that requirement). Whatever the answer however, the RN should not give up its position in the top tier of MCM.

What in your view would a T32 have that a T26 does not?
Rather what wouldn't it have.

Not a 5", not a MT30, fancy gearbox, electric drive nor other gold plated T26 ASW noise abatement measures to pipework etc.

So would have features: Central mission bay certainly, stern ramp possibly, Mk41 VLS, 57mm & 40mm, hull mounted mine avoidance radar a requirement, deagaussing as required, main engine & generator rafting/active mounts/sound abatement enclosure etc. ideally. I'd be looking for that on a A140 MNP derivative at (stab) ~ £400-450m/unit cost.

With its mission bay T26 could certainly do the stand-off mission with ARCIMS, but should it at ~ £850m/unit? That's overkill to me. They're precious and need to be kept out of minefields for TAPS, High North/Atlantic, CSG.
Up to date cost of the Type 26 B2's

T-26B2 contract 4.2 billion Nov 2022
MOD order for 5 Mk-45 MIFS 181 million Feb 2023
MOD order 2150 sonars 30 million June 2023

This makes the unit cost of a Type 26B2 882 million we need to wait and find out if the £100 million MOD order for CAMM was for all 8 ships or just the first 3 ships but if it was for all 8 it would make the unit cost of a Type 26B2 894 million
Hence my use of ~ meaning approximate.....viz circa, c., approx., around etc

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 18:34
Repulse wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 15:54]

Hence why I think an A140 MNP style T32 self escorting UxV mothership meets your high end argument for MCM and able to be re-rolled to littoral multistatic ASW, RM raiding.....

What in your view would a T32 have that a T26 does not?
Rather what wouldn't it have.

Not a 5", not a MT30, fancy gearbox, electric drive nor other gold plated T26 ASW noise abatement measures to pipework etc.

So would have features: Central mission bay certainly, stern ramp possibly, Mk41 VLS, 57mm & 40mm, hull mounted mine avoidance radar a requirement, deagaussing as required, main engine & generator rafting/active mounts/sound abatement enclosure etc. ideally. I'd be looking for that on a A140 MNP derivative at (stab) ~ £400-450m/unit cost.

With its mission bay T26 could certainly do the stand-off mission with ARCIMS, but should it at ~ £850m/unit? That's overkill to me. They're precious and need to be kept out of minefields for TAPS, High North/Atlantic, CSG.
I would have a T26 over two of what you suggest - why?

Because, a T26 can do this and truly self escort - and when it’s not doing this role it can be hunting subs and all the things you list. We will (and should) have OSVs and other minor warships that can do this role for a large number of scenarios anyway.

The downside of course is that it cannot be in two places at once, but the problem is the fewer you have the more “precious” (and expensive) they become. Going from 8 to 10 T26s (or ideally 8 to 12 by selling other things) suddenly makes things a lot easier to manage IMO.
”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

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 19:17
new guy wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 14:36
Any UxV mothership needs to be substantially self escorting, imo, and that means more than a 40mm/57mm gun as proposed by Aitken of BMT, in his RINA paper of 2018 that someone referenced.

Otherwise the 'Channel stand-off' UxV mothership (as defined) needs an escort and you're then into 'Area Standoff' task groups.

The threats have got more complex and denser since Mr. Aitken wrote his justification for a 'City Class' esque 85m MCMV mothership.

Imo.
MCMV's usually move in task groups. Look at how NATOMCMMG1&2, Kipion, or just general, Especially in wartime. They are there to make way for the main group after all.
Of-course, SHORAD I approve off, be it 40mm or LMM turrets.
However, that doesn't mean you need to:

a) Buy a 3x more expensive to purchase and operate vessel.
b) Hinder an escort by trying to add or fit on 30 meters length of work deck space.
You've got a slow underarmed 'single role' MCMV/Hydrographic Survey vessel with a secondary benign patrol capability...I.e. MHPC. It needs a £400m + escort (or greater) to prevent it being an easy target.

I just prefer the greater utility and survivability of a 'GP frigate' with offboard UxVs for MCM etc./littoral ASW contribution over the alternative.
Do you think the MoD is made of money?
Even If it was it would not waste money on such inefficencies you have put above.

We have no money for £500m MCMV. More like £100m each or less.
We have no money to operate such extravagant vessels.
Even if we did have the money to do that we wouldn't do that because it is inefficent
You can't outrun mines by going 12 knots faster. 15 knots is suffice for most task groups as it said in the 2018
MCMV's would never travel alone in the first place because they are there to make way for the ships with them.
These users liked the author new guy for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

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: 27 Feb 2024, 19:17
new guy wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 14:36
Any UxV mothership needs to be substantially self escorting, imo, and that means more than a 40mm/57mm gun as proposed by Aitken of BMT, in his RINA paper of 2018 that someone referenced.

Otherwise the 'Channel stand-off' UxV mothership (as defined) needs an escort and you're then into 'Area Standoff' task groups.

The threats have got more complex and denser since Mr. Aitken wrote his justification for a 'City Class' esque 85m MCMV mothership.

Imo.
MCMV's usually move in task groups. Look at how NATOMCMMG1&2, Kipion, or just general, Especially in wartime. They are there to make way for the main group after all.
Of-course, SHORAD I approve off, be it 40mm or LMM turrets.
However, that doesn't mean you need to:

a) Buy a 3x more expensive to purchase and operate vessel.
b) Hinder an escort by trying to add or fit on 30 meters length of work deck space.
You've got a slow underarmed 'single role' MCMV/Hydrographic Survey vessel with a secondary benign patrol capability...I.e. MHPC. It needs a £400m + escort (or greater) to prevent it being an easy target.

I just prefer the greater utility and survivability of a 'GP frigate' with offboard UxVs for MCM etc./littoral ASW contribution over the alternative.
Do you think the MoD is made of money?
Even If it was it would not waste money on such inefficencies you have put above.

We have no money for £500m MCMV. More like £100m each or less.
We have no money to operate such extravagant vessels.
Even if we did have the money to do that we wouldn't do that because it is inefficent
You can't outrun mines by going 12 knots faster. 15 knots is suffice for most task groups as it said in the 2018
MCMV's would never travel alone in the first place because they are there to make way for the ships with them.
All of the above is unfunded at the moment, so we're all indulging in fantasy fleets....

Rather than OPVs, OPV+s, OSVs/PSVs, MCMV motherships (the "Small Ship Option"), which require additional mechanical engineering manpower plus POs, CPO, XOs, COs generally, my first 'resource allocation' would be to use that fictional budget to add Mk41s and NSMs to T31 to make them pretty handy - see upthread for uses. Anything left upgrade the RB2s a bit and leave them where they are.

I won't repeat the arguments I've used upthread re lack of UK yard capacity and hence ISDs for the Small Ship Option, save to say the T31 upgrade proposal might need a 'handful' more weapons engineers per hull.

Gives time to the RN to sort its manning issues out rather than compounding them.

Should the RN get its future hull budget, then rather than then build the 'missing' Small Ships with the disadvantages I see (upthread) I'd go with 5x A140 MNP type multi-role UxV motherships rather than ~ 2 extra T26 as Repulse prefers. Sure, T26 can do blue water ASW in addition, but in a resource constrained environment I'd go with the mass.

As Repulse has also previously argued, it's a delusion imo that Small Ships add mass other than in a peacetime presence. They'll be a liability without an escort in a conflict.

Just because MCM has historically been done by Small Ships that can barely make 12kn in a shallow swell and need to be escorted doesn't mean that that conops can't evolve.

Smaller scale dispersed ops into a secondary port/landing zone might not involve a whole task group steaming towards Al-Faw....


Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 21:40 Should the RN get its future hull budget, then rather than then build the 'missing' Small Ships with the disadvantages I see (upthread) I'd go with 5x A140 MNP type multi-role UxV motherships rather than ~ 2 extra T26 as Repulse prefers. Sure, T26 can do blue water ASW in addition, but in a resource constrained environment I'd go with the mass.
In a resource constrained environment you don’t add new unique platforms with their specific training and support requirements. Also, the most precious resource is trained crew, two more capable T26s is a much better use than more crew spread over more less capable platforms IMO.

Also mass for mass sake isn’t a coherent strategy. As stated NATOs challenge isn’t mass it’s lack of quality.
As Repulse has also previously argued, it's a delusion imo that Small Ships add mass other than in a peacetime presence. They'll be a liability without an escort in a conflict.
It’s not delusion, the same argument and lessons have been learnt time and time again. Yes, minor warships have limited capability, but they do things that free up other more capable platforms, especially in home waters (under land based air protection) without soaking up large crews. They also provide trained core crews capable of expanding to crew larger warships.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
new guy
”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

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 21:40 All of the above is unfunded at the moment, so we're all indulging in fantasy fleets....

MHC Block 2 is literally funded for ~3 LSV's which we would get in the near future vs your idea which would get us 1 in the next decade for higher cost and lower operational rates.
You are the only one indulging in fantasy fleets as I am talking about the actual Royal Navy Plan.
I'd go with 5x A140 MNP type multi-role UxV motherships rather than ~ 2 extra T26 as Repulse prefers. Sure, T26 can do blue water ASW in addition, but in a resource constrained environment I'd go with the mass.
So, resource constrained environment, yet your paying 4x the price for MCMV's?
As Repulse has also previously argued, it's a delusion imo that Small Ships add mass other than in a peacetime presence. They'll be a liability without an escort in a conflict.
I have heard repulse argue this many times, but I believe his argument is against Patrol vessels not MCMV's. MCMV's serve a purpose in wartime, whereas in his opinion OPV's do not. I invite him to speak for himself on this.

Smaller scale dispersed ops into a secondary port/landing zone might not involve a whole task group steaming towards Al-Faw....
With your model we wont be able to afford enough MCMV's to put MCMV's on disperal, even if we did have enough amphibs and escorts for the amphibs to do simultaneous separate operations. Wait... what was that? An escort for the amphib?

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:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 21:40 Should the RN get its future hull budget, then rather than then build the 'missing' Small Ships with the disadvantages I see (upthread) I'd go with 5x A140 MNP type multi-role UxV motherships rather than ~ 2 extra T26 as Repulse prefers. Sure, T26 can do blue water ASW in addition, but in a resource constrained environment I'd go with the mass.
In a resource constrained environment you don’t add new unique platforms with their specific training and support requirements. Also, the most precious resource is trained crew, two more capable T26s is a much better use than more crew spread over more less capable platforms IMO.

Also mass for mass sake isn’t a coherent strategy. As stated NATOs challenge isn’t mass it’s lack of quality.
As Repulse has also previously argued, it's a delusion imo that Small Ships add mass other than in a peacetime presence. They'll be a liability without an escort in a conflict.
It’s not delusion, the same argument and lessons have been learnt time and time again. Yes, minor warships have limited capability, but they do things that free up other more capable platforms, especially in home waters (under land based air protection) without soaking up large crews. They also provide trained core crews capable of expanding to crew larger warships.
You selectively omitted a key phrase and segway above your first quote:

"Gives time to the RN to sort its manning issues out rather than compounding them."

I.e. before embarking on a major new build program.

Don't get me wrong I think T26 will be an excellent (the best) blue water ASW resource and with no resource constraints we should have more.

But, as others have said, it's overkill for other roles, when an 8/10 would suffice and who's suggesting that a T32 couldn't be that? The 80:20 rule is based on many real world experiences. The 20% adds the extra build cost/unit.

Agreed T26 would be a cookie cutter training task, but a T32 based on an A140 MNP (an Evolved T31) would have much in common with the latter.

And I'm not suggesting that some underarmed OPVs/PSVs acting as motherships in home waters under air protection wouldn't be a good thing for infrastructure and crew development.

But wait..... we're almost there with Proteus and Stirling Castle.....
These users liked the author Pte. James Frazer for the post:
wargame_insomniac

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Repulse wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 20:21
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 18:34
Repulse wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 15:54]

Hence why I think an A140 MNP style T32 self escorting UxV mothership meets your high end argument for MCM and able to be re-rolled to littoral multistatic ASW, RM raiding.....

What in your view would a T32 have that a T26 does not?
Rather what wouldn't it have.

Not a 5", not a MT30, fancy gearbox, electric drive nor other gold plated T26 ASW noise abatement measures to pipework etc.

So would have features: Central mission bay certainly, stern ramp possibly, Mk41 VLS, 57mm & 40mm, hull mounted mine avoidance radar a requirement, deagaussing as required, main engine & generator rafting/active mounts/sound abatement enclosure etc. ideally. I'd be looking for that on a A140 MNP derivative at (stab) ~ £400-450m/unit cost.

With its mission bay T26 could certainly do the stand-off mission with ARCIMS, but should it at ~ £850m/unit? That's overkill to me. They're precious and need to be kept out of minefields for TAPS, High North/Atlantic, CSG.
I would have a T26 over two of what you suggest - why?

Because, a T26 can do this and truly self escort - and when it’s not doing this role it can be hunting subs and all the things you list. We will (and should) have OSVs and other minor warships that can do this role for a large number of scenarios anyway.

The downside of course is that it cannot be in two places at once, but the problem is the fewer you have the more “precious” (and expensive) they become. Going from 8 to 10 T26s (or ideally 8 to 12 by selling other things) suddenly makes things a lot easier to manage IMO.
Are you really suggesting the RN should build extra billion dollar tier 1 escorts to do mine hunting?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 01:44 Are you really suggesting the RN should build extra billion dollar tier 1 escorts to do mine hunting?
Am I suggesting the RN build more tier 1 warships that are capable of operating large off board systems? Yes, absolutely.

I have been saying the same thing for over a decade since ThinkDefence posed the question in 2010 whether the RN would be better with a large number of less capable warships or a smaller core fleet of tier one “world best” warships.

Am I saying that the T26s would be used solely for MCM, absolutely not - but you know this. Also, through the selection of additional appropriate minor warships that can similarly handle large off board systems, and do other roles that are a priority, then the platform can be chosen to match the requirement (including the threat level).
”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: 1506
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 07:55
tomuk wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 01:44 Are you really suggesting the RN should build extra billion dollar tier 1 escorts to do mine hunting?
Am I suggesting the RN build more tier 1 warships that are capable of operating large off board systems? Yes, absolutely.

I have been saying the same thing for over a decade since ThinkDefence posed the question in 2010 whether the RN would be better with a large number of less capable warships or a smaller core fleet of tier one “world best” warships.

Am I saying that the T26s would be used solely for MCM, absolutely not - but you know this. Also, through the selection of additional appropriate minor warships that can similarly handle large off board systems, and do other roles that are a priority, then the platform can be chosen to match the requirement (including the threat level).
Why do tier 1 escorts need to operate large off board systems? Unless the system replaced the helicopter or possibly a wingman for bi static sonar.

As to MCM I can't see any scenario where it would need to carry it out where another more appropriate platform would not be available.

The RN has a core of 'world best' warships. That core is too small and their is nothing wrong adding to it with more modest ships, ships that are\will be used by our NATO allies. Even if we had 10 T31 it wouldn't be by anyone's measure a large fleet or unbalanced. We would just be returning to escort numbers seen in 2008ish.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 19:24
Tempest414 wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 18:34
Repulse wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 15:54]I actually don't disagree with your high end argument.

I'm arguing that you can turn T31 into a pretty strong local area AAW/ASuW frigate/escort (a damn site better than a T23 GP) and task group goalkeeper/potentially networked missile silo.

A silk purse from a sow's ear.

I also believe that high end MCM will require more than an 85m UxV mothership, whether commercial PSV derivative or bespoke 'City Class' style design because we don't have the 'mass' to escort those into harms way.

Hence why I think an A140 MNP style T32 self escorting UxV mothership meets your high end argument for MCM and able to be re-rolled to littoral multistatic ASW, RM raiding.....
Don’t really want to discuss upgrading the T31, we’ve done that to death and it’s all speculation without funding.

Agree on MCM that the answer is not a single platform, rather than multiple platforms that have hybrid roles dependent on the specific requirement being fulfilled (and reflecting the threat level of that requirement). Whatever the answer however, the RN should not give up its position in the top tier of MCM.

What in your view would a T32 have that a T26 does not?
Rather what wouldn't it have.

Not a 5", not a MT30, fancy gearbox, electric drive nor other gold plated T26 ASW noise abatement measures to pipework etc.

So would have features: Central mission bay certainly, stern ramp possibly, Mk41 VLS, 57mm & 40mm, hull mounted mine avoidance radar a requirement, deagaussing as required, main engine & generator rafting/active mounts/sound abatement enclosure etc. ideally. I'd be looking for that on a A140 MNP derivative at (stab) ~ £400-450m/unit cost.

With its mission bay T26 could certainly do the stand-off mission with ARCIMS, but should it at ~ £850m/unit? That's overkill to me. They're precious and need to be kept out of minefields for TAPS, High North/Atlantic, CSG.
Up to date cost of the Type 26 B2's

T-26B2 contract 4.2 billion Nov 2022
MOD order for 5 Mk-45 MIFS 181 million Feb 2023
MOD order 2150 sonars 30 million June 2023

This makes the unit cost of a Type 26B2 882 million we need to wait and find out if the £100 million MOD order for CAMM was for all 8 ships or just the first 3 ships but if it was for all 8 it would make the unit cost of a Type 26B2 894 million
Hence my use of ~ meaning approximate.....viz circa, c., approx., around etc
Yes thank you I fully understand the meaning of ~

I was bring the current cost of T-26B2 to the table as this has its place in the debate

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Would you be prepared to lose a Type 26 frigate in a minefield?
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
tomuk

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 23:06 You selectively omitted a key phrase and segway above your first quote:

"Gives time to the RN to sort its manning issues out rather than compounding them."

I.e. before embarking on a major new build program.
Apologies, I didn’t mean to misquote you, but I think the new T31 class is similarly compounding the issue.
Don't get me wrong I think T26 will be an excellent (the best) blue water ASW resource and with no resource constraints we should have more.

But, as others have said, it's overkill for other roles, when an 8/10 would suffice and who's suggesting that a T32 couldn't be that? The 80:20 rule is based on many real world experiences. The 20% adds the extra build cost/unit.

Agreed T26 would be a cookie cutter training task, but a T32 based on an A140 MNP (an Evolved T31) would have much in common with the latter.
The thing for me is putting aside Kipion for a minute, MCM operations out side of the UK or NATO is something that will be rare, especially something that has a higher threat level. Better to invest in a platform that can do multiple things like a T26, coupled with a few platforms that can operate in lower threat environments such as my preference which is to dust off the MHPC concept, but equally others who look at commercial OSV vessels.

MCM for Kipion is the outlier for me, as the threat is not low - my view would be to enable local allies to do it.
And I'm not suggesting that some underarmed OPVs/PSVs acting as motherships in home waters under air protection wouldn't be a good thing for infrastructure and crew development.

But wait..... we're almost there with Proteus and Stirling Castle.....
Yes both are there, both have very large crews and are oddly RFA manned - the RN can probably afford one more of these, but equally need to operate from other platformsr.
”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: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 10:25
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 23:06 You selectively omitted a key phrase and segway above your first quote:

"Gives time to the RN to sort its manning issues out rather than compounding them."

I.e. before embarking on a major new build program.
Apologies, I didn’t mean to misquote you, but I think the new T31 class is similarly compounding the issue.
Don't get me wrong I think T26 will be an excellent (the best) blue water ASW resource and with no resource constraints we should have more.

But, as others have said, it's overkill for other roles, when an 8/10 would suffice and who's suggesting that a T32 couldn't be that? The 80:20 rule is based on many real world experiences. The 20% adds the extra build cost/unit.

Agreed T26 would be a cookie cutter training task, but a T32 based on an A140 MNP (an Evolved T31) would have much in common with the latter.
The thing for me is putting aside Kipion for a minute, MCM operations out side of the UK or NATO is something that will be rare, especially something that has a higher threat level. Better to invest in a platform that can do multiple things like a T26, coupled with a few platforms that can operate in lower threat environments such as my preference which is to dust off the MHPC concept, but equally others who look at commercial OSV vessels.

MCM for Kipion is the outlier for me, as the threat is not low - my view would be to enable local allies to do it.
And I'm not suggesting that some underarmed OPVs/PSVs acting as motherships in home waters under air protection wouldn't be a good thing for infrastructure and crew development.

But wait..... we're almost there with Proteus and Stirling Castle.....


Yes both are there, both have very large crews and are oddly RFA manned - the RN can probably afford one more of these, but equally need to operate from other platformsr.


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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

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
”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: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

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.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
donald_of_tokyo
”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: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 08:13 Why do tier 1 escorts need to operate large off board systems? Unless the system replaced the helicopter or possibly a wingman for bi static sonar.
Because off board systems complement and enhance the tier one platform capabilities, and there is zero reason to have to operate a second vessel if it’s not needed, especially one that needs to be protected whilst doing it. These off board systems are critical for the RN to retain its qualitative edge.
As to MCM I can't see any scenario where it would need to carry it out where another more appropriate platform would not be available.
It’s a very edge case I agree, but I can see a scenario whereby a T26 could do this in a high threat environment. It no different the operating these systems from a port and having a warship providing over watch.
The RN has a core of 'world best' warships. That core is too small and their is nothing wrong adding to it with more modest ships, ships that are\will be used by our NATO allies. Even if we had 10 T31 it wouldn't be by anyone's measure a large fleet or unbalanced. We would just be returning to escort numbers seen in 2008ish.
I strongly believe there is something wrong with adding more modest ships, rather than investing for a modest increase in the core, because:
- Our immediate priorities (the defence of the UK nor NATO) does not require mass (20+ escorts), 16-18 would cover our requirements comfortably. Suggest you read the latest CDS speech which sums up the position nicely “ NATO has four times as many ships and three times as many submarines as Russia.”
- However we are absolutely over reliant on the US for tier one capabilities at a point where it’s becoming less reliable. We need to focus on filling that gap as much as possible.
- Everything outside of NATO and protection of our BOTs we will be a contributor, nothing more. Yes, we can replicate what other navies already have, or we can provide niche / top tier capabilities - I know what is more valuable. Interestingly, there was a Australian think tank on Twitter who suggested that the UK based two T31s in Oz to help fill their gap in escorts - my view would be to sell them to Oz, and use the money towards these high end capabilities, as what real strategic interest is there for us to do it?
- lastly, what is often forgotten is the broader benefit of research and development of these top tier capabilities to the broader economy. Metal bashing will never make the UK rich, leading on composites, AI and other technologies might.
”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: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

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.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 12:49
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.
I see your argument, but the same will apply when operating these from shore. Also, there is no guarantee that the first ship through will set it off either and the technology allow mines to be more selective when detecting the unique signatures of specific types of ships. Perhaps the quietening of the T26 actually plays into its favour. Regardless, we shouldn’t be reliant on a kamikaze ship to make an area safe.
”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: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 12:59
SW1 wrote: 28 Feb 2024, 12:49
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.
I see your argument, but the same will apply when operating these from shore. Also, there is no guarantee that the first ship through will set it off either and the technology allow mines to be more selective when detecting the unique signatures of specific types of ships. Perhaps the quietening of the T26 actually plays into its favour. Regardless, we shouldn’t be reliant on a kamikaze ship to make an area safe.
Yes operating from shore would be the same to a point but it’s also why you have dedicated ships to do the task. It’s not about being a kamikaze the first one thru is always a guinea pig and those doing it need to be prepared to lose one. Why you don’t send a critical or significant one first.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5570
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

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.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 5):
Ron5Scimitar54new guyserge750wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pte. James Frazer »

Tempest414 wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 19:24
Tempest414 wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 18:34
Repulse wrote:
Pte. James Frazer wrote: 27 Feb 2024, 15:54]I actually don't disagree with your high end argument.

I'm arguing that you can turn T31 into a pretty strong local area AAW/ASuW frigate/escort (a damn site better than a T23 GP) and task group goalkeeper/potentially networked missile silo.

A silk purse from a sow's ear.

I also believe that high end MCM will require more than an 85m UxV mothership, whether commercial PSV derivative or bespoke 'City Class' style design because we don't have the 'mass' to escort those into harms way.

Hence why I think an A140 MNP style T32 self escorting UxV mothership meets your high end argument for MCM and able to be re-rolled to littoral multistatic ASW, RM raiding.....
Don’t really want to discuss upgrading the T31, we’ve done that to death and it’s all speculation without funding.

Agree on MCM that the answer is not a single platform, rather than multiple platforms that have hybrid roles dependent on the specific requirement being fulfilled (and reflecting the threat level of that requirement). Whatever the answer however, the RN should not give up its position in the top tier of MCM.

What in your view would a T32 have that a T26 does not?
Rather what wouldn't it have.

Not a 5", not a MT30, fancy gearbox, electric drive nor other gold plated T26 ASW noise abatement measures to pipework etc.

So would have features: Central mission bay certainly, stern ramp possibly, Mk41 VLS, 57mm & 40mm, hull mounted mine avoidance radar a requirement, deagaussing as required, main engine & generator rafting/active mounts/sound abatement enclosure etc. ideally. I'd be looking for that on a A140 MNP derivative at (stab) ~ £400-450m/unit cost.

With its mission bay T26 could certainly do the stand-off mission with ARCIMS, but should it at ~ £850m/unit? That's overkill to me. They're precious and need to be kept out of minefields for TAPS, High North/Atlantic, CSG.
Up to date cost of the Type 26 B2's

T-26B2 contract 4.2 billion Nov 2022
MOD order for 5 Mk-45 MIFS 181 million Feb 2023
MOD order 2150 sonars 30 million June 2023

This makes the unit cost of a Type 26B2 882 million we need to wait and find out if the £100 million MOD order for CAMM was for all 8 ships or just the first 3 ships but if it was for all 8 it would make the unit cost of a Type 26B2 894 million
Hence my use of ~ meaning approximate.....viz circa, c., approx., around etc
Yes thank you I fully understand the meaning of ~

I was bring the current cost of T-26B2 to the table as this has its place in the debate
Apologies I had just previously rounded it (down from your analysis) for ease.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5601
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

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

Post Reply