Rest in peace RN :-(

[marktigger]

hanger for 2 helicopters thats 2 Wildcat helicopters or 1 merlin

[Engaging Strategy]

hanger for 2 helicopters thats 2 Wildcat helicopters or 1 merlin

I believe it needs to be bigger than a simple Merlin-sized hangar in order to fit two Wildcats. Either way a hangar sized for two Wildcats is, frankly, excessive when we only have 28 of them in total. Type 26 is the ASW specialist, it should be sailing routinely with a Merlin embarked in order to hone the ship-helicopter cooperation vital for ASW. The other rotary wing assets are fine to be left for other platforms the Destroyers, RFAs, GP Frigates etc...

[abc123]

Well yes, 14 sounds ridiculously low to me, but what do I know - that's why I ask.

Could you flesh out what you mean by "half way credible"?
I suspect I know the answer, but is it not possible to add sufficient sensors, armament, damage control and stores etc to enable a Cutlass variant to be a half way credible escort? I ask since, as some others on here, I'm pretty much resigned to expecting that the cheap and cheerful MOTS option, and if so, does that definitively mean that it's a dud, or is there potentially still a chance that it could turn out to be something credible for the RN?

You can turn it every way you want, but without more money for defence, you will get nothing more than 6 + 8(if even that)... And a bunch of glorified OPVs.

So, that's realism. Credible or not.

So, maybe better to get real OPVs instead and use the rest of money for a few Type 26 more?

[LordJim]

I am starting to think we should bite the bullet and join either the French or Italians in their respective light frigate programmes, swapping out ASTER for CAAM, adopt with the latest Exocet or OTOMAT as a stop gap for the T-45, T-26 as well and use Artisan as the radar. Even get them to build them if it is cheaper. I know there it is the intention to maintain out Naval ship builder capability but unless the Government stumps up more money and we start building one escort per year, every year, replacing vessels on a rolling basis we are getting piss poor value for money and money is everything in defence now and in the future. Keep things going as they are and the RN will be lucky to have 12 escorts by 2030.

Maybe the RN should try to hide the fact that the T-31 is actually going to be a proper frigate and call it a large or heavy OPV like they did with the Invincible "Through Deck Cruisers", in the 1970s. The way things are going we are only going to be able to properly fund two out of the three Armed Services in the future, which for political reasons will probably be the RN and RAF with the Army around for ceremonial duties. So we might have 12 escorts after all.

[ArmChairCivvy]

bite the bullet and join either the French or Italians in their respective light frigate programmes

The latter even comes in frigate and OPV flavours, on the same hull, and upgradeable later.

[dmereifield]

1) is 14 high end escorts sufficient for the RN's commitments, and possible future war scenarios?

If you want only 14 proper FF/DD you have to ask, can the RN do what's required of them with 13? How about 10? I ask, because during peacetime things like this happen:









And during wartime things like this happen:







Where's the resilience in a 14 strong high end escort force? I would argue that there isn't any. Designing your force around the idea that accidents won't happen and wars won't result in losses is moronic. This is why T31 has to be halfway credible.

2) if the T31 is only going to be capable of undertaking the tasks you describe, why waste the money on Cutlass/Avenger, why not just buy more River B2?

Exactly, except it's escorts that the RN needs, and not more OPVs.

I guess the 2nd is rhetorical since we know HMG is committed to the T31 now...but it doesn't seem to make much sense spending a lot of money on a class of ships that won't seem to be able to do much more than the Rivers

Brass tacks: do we want to have a useful and resilient escort force, or do we want to pretend we're building warships, only to have that pretence cruelly torn away when we actually have to fight a war with them?

Those advocating 14 high end escorts and a bunch of OPVs with a gun and some CAMM are essentially suggesting that we plan on the assumption that we'll be facing the best case scenario: no ships lost or put out of action by accident or by combat for the next 30 odd years.

Well yes, 14 sounds ridiculously low to me, but what do I know - that's why I ask.

Could you flesh out what you mean by "half way credible"?
I suspect I know the answer, but is it not possible to add sufficient sensors, armament, damage control and stores etc to enable a Cutlass variant to be a half way credible escort? I ask since, as some others on here, I'm pretty much resigned to expecting that the cheap and cheerful MOTS option, and if so, does that definitively mean that it's a dud, or is there potentially still a chance that it could turn out to be something credible for the RN?

Thanks for the detailed response.
So let me try to put that together and see what she looks like, using the Venator 110 as the platform (it seems a little optimistic to imagine we might get the Spartan or something equivalent). So it would have the same (equivalent by today’s standards) level of damage control, the same sensors and decoys (presumably mostly brought over from the T23’s) as the GP T23s. Presumably with reduced manning if the T26 plans are anything to go by.

In summary:
-Range : ca. 5k nm? Wiki states 7.5k nm for the T23 – though you state this isn’t necessary – what would be acceptable?
-32 sea ceptor
-5” gun (presumably, in keeping with the T26)
-1 (or none?) phalanx
-Merlin sized hangar
-An assortment of miniguns, 30mm guns and GPMGs

Based on this, I have two questions
1] Is the aforementioned a fair reflection of what you would expect in a credible vessel for the RN for a cost effective T31?
It seems to me that this would be a considerable step backwards from the T23 GP – it has no torpedo tubes (I have no idea if this is an issue - the arguments I read here (and elsewhere) are polar – 1] don’t need them because you’re already dead if you have to use them, and 2] better to have than not have, and every other credible navy has them), loss of acoustically quite hull, no SSM (unless there is an announcement in the near future for Harpoon replacement one can only assume that there will not be SSM in the absence of MK41 VLS), reduced range and loss of FFBNW for TAS (again the arguments I read are polarised with 1] it’s not a plug and play system to add the TAS so FFBNW isn’t really useful, and 2] it gives flexibility to upgrade in future so not a bad thing).

2] It seems to me (with absolutely zilch expertise of shipbuilding or engineering!) that it wouldn’t be all that difficult to include these specs (32 sea captor, 5” gun, 1 (or none) phalanx, Merlin sized hangar, assortment of miniguns, 30mm guns and GPMGs, and 5k nm range, T23 GP sensors and decoys) onto a Cutlass sized platform. I only hold this opinion because similar sized vessels (and some considerably smaller) in other navies seem to have this level of armament (or perhaps greater even). Would the Cutlass still not be acceptable/credible if BAE managed to redesign it to meet these specifications?

[marktigger]

I believe it needs to be bigger than a simple Merlin-sized hangar in order to fit two Wildcats. Either way a hangar sized for two Wildcats is, frankly, excessive when we only have 28 of them in total. Type 26 is the ASW specialist, it should be sailing routinely with a Merlin embarked in order to hone the ship-helicopter cooperation vital for ASW. The other rotary wing assets are fine to be left for other platforms the Destroyers, RFAs, GP Frigates etc...

Merlin size hanger gives flexibility not only allowing for the choice of helicopters to vary according to the deployment. but if the smaller helicopter carried extra space is then available especially if you ditch the mission bay as you propose. But Merlin capable facilities also allow for training and as a place of safety if a merlin is in trouble. What is the extra cost? steel is meant to be cheap.

[Engaging Strategy]

So, for the people interested in the broad strokes of what I envision for an "austere" T-31 you'll remember my list of things on the T-26 that I consider unnecessary/to be more modest on T-31:

-Accommodation for a large EMF.
-Chinook capable flight deck.
-Mission bay in the superstructure.
-Large strike-length VLS.
-Distributed missile silos.
-Hangar for two helicopters.
-Gas Turbine propulsion.
-Ultra-quiet hull and machinery.
-2 CIWS.
-7000nmi range

So with those restrictions in mind what *can* we do?

-32 CAMM, quad-packed in a single 8 cell ExLS VLS module. This keeps the primary AAW system compact while providing the same level of capability as the modernised Type 23.

-The same surface and air warfare sensor suite as Type 26. A major reason for the GP Frigate's existence is to act as a persistent surveillance and picture-building asset, therefore the sensor suite will be key to its effectiveness.

-Stern Garage/Small Mission bay in the hull. The key here is not allowing the mission bay to add significant length to the ship. In this regard I'm a big fan of Spartan's "stern garage". It's a pretty elegant means of adding space for containerised or off board systems without taking up a massive section in the superstructure.

-Small strike VLS/Heavyweight missile canisters. I'm an advocate of a small Strike VLS (8 cells max) to guarantee commonality with SPEAR Cap 5 AShM/Cruise Missile. This would likely be FFBNW until the RN actually deploys the new missile system in the early 2030s. Alternatively we could always go for a "cheap" canister missile, although imo it doesn't make sense to have 2 systems doing the same job. Ideal solution would be canisters for SPEAR 5, but if they aren't developed then it'll have to be a small VLS.

-The hangar need only be capable of carrying a Merlin at the most. Personally I'd seriously consider sizing it for Wildcat only, but understand there are good arguments either way.

-CODAD or IEP run off Diesel Generators for propulsion. Essentially play it safe and cheap and compromise on sprint speed.

-CIWS is an interesting one and I see a number of options here. Either you merge the gun with the CIWS and go with something like the OTO Melara 76mm or you stick with the system the RN will have in service, so essentially a Phalanx Block 1B unit, probably mounted on the hangar roof to maximise its arc of fire. The tradeoff being a more expensive 5" gun.

-7000 nmi range is excessive for a more austere frigate. The Type 22s had only 4500 nmi range and proved excellent ships. 5,000 nmi seems a reasonable compromise.

So what you've essentially got is a modern Type 23GP with a few nips and tucks. Could even leave the option of a Towed array open, with consideration built in to the design of the stern garage.

[dmereifield]

^^ thanks for sharing, very interesting

[marktigger]

S
-CIWS is an interesting one and I see a number of options here. Either you merge the gun with the CIWS and go with something like the OTO Melara 76mm or you stick with the system the RN will have in service, so essentially a Phalanx Block 1B unit, probably mounted on the hangar roof to maximise its arc of fire. The tradeoff being a more expensive 5" gun.

.

Given this is the most likely platform to be utilized to provide NGFS I would argue that the 5in and CIWS are better option than 76mm.
to get 76mm you need whole support system for 5-6 weapons tops. 5in will be on type 26 and probably be refitted to type 45 and successor thats 20+ weapons. cuts training and maintainence bills.
and the 5inch is the better platform for NGFS

[marktigger]

S
-CIWS is an interesting one and I see a number of options here. Either you merge the gun with the CIWS and go with something like the OTO Melara 76mm or you stick with the system the RN will have in service, so essentially a Phalanx Block 1B unit, probably mounted on the hangar roof to maximise its arc of fire. The tradeoff being a more expensive 5" gun.

.

Given this is the most likely platform to be utilized to provide NGFS I would argue that the 5in and CIWS are better option than 76mm.
to get 76mm you need whole support system for 5-6 weapons tops. 5in will be on type 26 and probably be refitted to type 45 and successor thats 20+ weapons. cuts training and maintainence bills.
and the 5inch is the better platform for NGFS

[Digger22]

I think everyone's comments sums it up really. In the spirit of the Thread, we will soon end up with a Surface 'Fleet' of Ships awaiting repair or refit, out training or tasked. Leaving the number of ships available in a crisis at pretty much None! The days of 16 ship exercise's in the Med (springtrain 82) are long gone, and will probably never return. Instead we are told to be happy with our lot. 19 high end escorts with a real possibility of that slipping. We need a GP Frigate. A workhorse, a tough little Bitch of a ship, hard as nails. A modern Leander. We just can't afford to have the Navy budget taken up by 19 'High End' Gin palace's. As modern systems become smaller, lighter and more modular, a multi swing role ship is very possible, and necessary. We just don't seem to have the vision to design it and build it in numbers that are sustainable.

[shark bait]

"The days of 16 ship exercise's in the Med" are not relevant today. Surface platforms have become more advanced, allowing a greater capability is squeezed onto fewer hulls.

We can argue about the fine details of the balance all day long, but in truth the fleet doesn’t need to be the size it used to be. In part that is due to physics, and the horizon limit a surface combatant experiences on its sphere of influence, which increases the value of aircraft, especially as it is favorable to operate over the horizon with distributed assets.

The RN getting its carriers, and filling them with them with capable aircraft has quite rightly been placed as a priority, because real power at sea comes from the air. They are effectively taking those Leander’s, and replacing them with F35 and Merlin. Once in service that will be the biggest capability boost the RN has seen in decades, and with T45’s and T26’s at its side it will be extremely powerful.

As for a "hard as nails" GP Frigate, the RN already has the perfect GP frigate in the works, it’s the T26. They had the vision to design it, they have just messed up the delivery.

[marktigger]

i would say its not impossible that we'll have 16 ship exercises in the med but i suggest it'll take something major or 20-30 years of sustained support for a naval expansion program. Maybe Brexit will focus minds on the fact we are an island trading nation who's markets are global.

[abc123]

i would say its not impossible that we'll have 16 ship exercises in the med but i suggest it'll take something major or 20-30 years of sustained support for a naval expansion program. Maybe Brexit will focus minds on the fact we are an island trading nation who's markets are global.

Considering I think that Brexit is a dumb decision, I don't think so...

[dmereifield]

i would say its not impossible that we'll have 16 ship exercises in the med but i suggest it'll take something major or 20-30 years of sustained support for a naval expansion program. Maybe Brexit will focus minds on the fact we are an island trading nation who's markets are global.

Considering I think that Brexit is a dumb decision, I don't think so...

So we can now start to narrow down your nationality...to one particular continent....

Happily for me, the majority of the voters disagreed with your opinion

[abc123]

i would say its not impossible that we'll have 16 ship exercises in the med but i suggest it'll take something major or 20-30 years of sustained support for a naval expansion program. Maybe Brexit will focus minds on the fact we are an island trading nation who's markets are global.

Considering I think that Brexit is a dumb decision, I don't think so...

So we can now start to narrow down your nationality...to one particular continent....

Happily for me, the majority of the voters disagreed with your opinion

Of course, Europe.

Well, a small majority... It's democratic your right, of course, but I still consider it a stupid move...

Mind you, I'm not very big supporter of the EU, but it has it's merits, especially for a big country like Britain.

[marktigger]

Considering I think that Brexit is a dumb decision, I don't think so...

Nope the dumb decision was putting to many of our eggs in the European basket leading to a Eurofocussed foreign and defence position one of the major products of which has been the view that we didn't need a large Navy as we don't have to move goods very far by sea.

[abc123]

Considering I think that Brexit is a dumb decision, I don't think so...

Nope the dumb decision was putting to many of our eggs in the European basket leading to a Eurofocussed foreign and defence position one of the major products of which has been the view that we didn't need a large Navy as we don't have to move goods very far by sea.

"Eggs in European basket" were placed there out of necessity, not out of dumb decisions. Joining the EU/EEZ was actually one of rare smart decisions of UK post-War Governments....

And I don't think that has a lot with reduction in strength of the RN. Much more important, IMHO, was loss of "Will to power" after the WW2 and decolonisation.

But anyway, smart or dumb, if Scotland leaves the UK because of Brexit, how smart it is then?

[marktigger]

Eggs in European basket" were placed there out of necessity, not out of dumb decisions. Joining the EU/EEZ was actually one of rare smart decisions of UK post-War Governments....

And I don't think that has a lot with reduction in strength of the RN. Much more important, IMHO, was loss of "Will to power" after the WW2 and decolonisation.

But anyway, smart or dumb, if Scotland leaves the UK because of Brexit, how smart it is then?

Joining the EEC maybe not putting Maastrict, Lisbon and other treaties to the british public maybe not so smart. Maybe a major NET CONTRIBUTOR saying no might have been listened to and the EU would not now be so far down the road to oblivion.

BTW Soctland leaving is a HUGE IF. If you listen to the Scottish Nazi part its a done thing the referendum is a walk in the park......If it's so assured of victory why doesn't it go for INDYREF 2......Because it knows it WILL Loose.

[abc123]

Eggs in European basket" were placed there out of necessity, not out of dumb decisions. Joining the EU/EEZ was actually one of rare smart decisions of UK post-War Governments....

And I don't think that has a lot with reduction in strength of the RN. Much more important, IMHO, was loss of "Will to power" after the WW2 and decolonisation.

But anyway, smart or dumb, if Scotland leaves the UK because of Brexit, how smart it is then?

Joining the EEC maybe not putting Maastrict, Lisbon and other treaties to the british public maybe not so smart. Maybe a major NET CONTRIBUTOR saying no might have been listened to and the EU would not now be so far down the road to oblivion.

BTW Soctland leaving is a HUGE IF. If you listen to the Scottish Nazi part its a done thing the referendum is a walk in the park......If it's so assured of victory why doesn't it go for INDYREF 2......Because it knows it WILL Loose.

I agree that the EEZ was much better idea than EU and iMHO they never should have gone for more than that. But it's spilled milk.

About Scotland, well, the last time it was IIRC 55% against leaving UK. Are you sure that the next time ( and they are asking for a referendum ) will not be the opposite?

[dmereifield]

^^ the polls, for what they're worth, show 1) pretty much a 45/55 split still in favour of the union, and 2) a majority do not want a second indy referendum.

I hope the Scots remain part of the UK, but in the unlikely even that they do leave the UK, then yes, Brexit was still a good idea...

As to you previous point about the closeness of the vote, it's true that 48% voted to remain, but that is not the same as 48% enthusiastically supporting EU membership. If you look at the earlier polls which indicate enthusiasm for leave or remain, 25% were die hard pro EU and 45% die hard pro Brexit. The way you manage to get from 25% up to 48% is:

1) The status quo effect (always more difficult to go against the comfortable/easier option of the status quo)
2) The Government's recommendation (a substantial minority still do believe the Government and heed it's advice)
3) Project fear (including roping in apparently impartial world leaders and economic bodies)
4) A minor contribution, worth a few hundred thousand remain results - Allowing Irish citizens to vote and allowing the registration deadline to be extended by 48hrs so that young would be voters could register

The deck was heavily stacked in favour of remain, yet leave still won

[Digger22]

Sorry SB, but I can't see the logic in that. Less is not more. We still have the availability issue, after these ships enter service. We only need look at T45, and Astute to see we need some numbers to be effective. Having to send RFA's, C3's (as they are now known) and anything we can get out of Harbour to a job a Frigate should (OK Exaggeration) be doing is pretty poor. I do agree that a huge problem has been in procurement. Not having a 'plan' has been pretty shameful. We could easily start one Escort a year for ever, delivering a 25 Ship Fleet, 25 yr change cycle, and regular sustainable work for the Builder. It's also hard to work out why we need to design New Hulls all the time. Surely, if it floats, provides the correct internal Volume, has the correct Balance of Naval dimension, then surely there has to be a fairly optimum Hull design? The US have used a fairly similar Hull design for a fair few class of Cruiser of the years, and amazingly they still work. We are constantly looking for Revolutionary designs rather than affordable, sustainable and evolutionary ones.
I think the lack of procurement has put the Builders well and truly in the driving seat when it comes to RnD. This comes with all the usual cost and Risk that only tends to favour them!

[ArmChairCivvy]

I agree that the EEZ was much better idea than EU and iMHO they never should have gone for more than that. But it's spilled milk.

Now we also have a language tip (within Europe) as it is not "Zone" over here, but Economic Space... just joking about us trying to track you down!

By way of the quote above, which one of the options (or some other?) would you advise for us:
- falling back onto that EES?
- falling back to WTO rules?
- falling back... onto the deal Turkey has with the EU; Actually, I dont need to quote that anymore, because the Ceta with Canada is better (so we adopt that vis-a-vis EU and in the same go, at our departure, grandfather those same terms to apply between us and Canada)?

surely there has to be a fairly optimum Hull design? The US have used a fairly similar Hull design for a fair few class of Cruiser of the years, and amazingly they still work.

- yeah, but only for so long
- Ticos have to go in for an overhaul, half of the fleet at a time (11), but that is more down to the materuals chosen (for topweight reduction) than the hull design as such
- the same curse of topweight issues hit the ABs (that officially are destroyers, not cruisers) when upgrades required for ABM became a must . Flight III might have them solved, but for the others it (CoG) became quite critical with all the past, incremental upgrades already overloading the "optimal" hull

[shark bait]

Sorry SB, but I can't see the logic in that. Less is not more. We still have the availability issue, after these ships enter service. We only need look at T45, and Astute to see we need some numbers to be effective. Having to send RFA's, C3's (as they are now known) and anything we can get out of Harbour to a job a Frigate should (OK Exaggeration) be doing is pretty poor. I do agree that a huge problem has been in procurement.......

Yes availability is an issue at present, but building more platforms is a very inefficient way to fix that problem, and skirts around the root cause of the issue. As we know modern platforms are highly expensive, and we should be squeezing higher availability out of them before considering building more, its what happens in commercial industry.

"Less is not more" if you're only counting numbers, if we're counting capability, and how that compares globally, less can be more.

Globally every fleet has condensed onto fewer more powerful platforms. If we're counting numbers the RN has declined by the same percentage as the USN, and both remain highly competitive globally.

Numbers don't matter, it's how you compete that does The UK will never do well at the numbers game, but will always be bloody good at the quality game, that is where we gain the competitive edge.

Don't get me wrong, I do advocate a modest increase in fleet size, but other issues must be fixed first, and compare to the 80's based only on numbers because that misses so much.

We also never send RFA's to do the job of a frigate, but it keeps popping up around here.