Next Generation RN surface warship

[rickusn]

I too unfortunately see only six Type 45's. Hope its not so.

I also see one more Type 23 frigate leaving service soon.

That will leave 12 Type 23's, 4 Type 22BIII and six Type 45';s for a total of 22.

I see an eventual class yet to be determined to replace the 16 frigates on a two for one basis.

Eventually yielding nominally by 2020:

2 Carrier Task Groups(1 CV, 2 Type 45, 2 ?)
1 Amphibious Task Group(1 LPH/LHD/LHA type ship, 2 Type 45, 2?)''

Plus two for homewaters patrol and emergency response deployments

Of course those 12 escorts along with the other two not earmarked will rotate through those groups along with independent duties in the S.Atlantic, N.Atlantic, Caribbean, MED and East of Suez depending on threat levels.

It may well be that in the future we will see a task group East of Suez more or less on a permanent basis often split into sub groups based on varying contingency operations.

Maybe a virtual withdrawal of a semi-permanent prescence in the MED.

How well the escorts will be augmented by OPV's in low threat areas such as the S.Atlantic, Caribbean, N. Atlantic is open to conjecture.

 

[mark22w]

I see an eventual class yet to be determined to replace the 16 frigates on a two for one basis.

Eventually yielding nominally by 2020:

2 Carrier Task Groups(1 CV, 2 Type 45, 2 ?)
1 Amphibious Task Group(1 LPH/LHD/LHA type ship, 2 Type 45, 2?)''

Plus two for homewaters patrol and emergency response deployments

Of course those 12 escorts along with the other two not earmarked will rotate through those groups along with independent duties in the S.Atlantic, N.Atlantic, Caribbean, MED and East of Suez depending on threat levels.

It may well be that in the future we will see a task group East of Suez more or less on a permanent basis often split into sub groups based on varying contingency operations.

Maybe a virtual withdrawal of a semi-permanent prescence in the MED.

How well the escorts will be augmented by OPV's in low threat areas such as the S.Atlantic, Caribbean, N. Atlantic is open to conjecture.

Bleak but very plausible. 14-18 fleet escorts allowing for maintenance – can’t see major refits being totally eliminated – would provide interesting implications on personnel and time at sea, not to mention time to move units to and from operational zones, particularly east of Suez.

The need to review any future force structure needs to consider recent RN experience in the Falklands and the sea swap (?) program for the USN. Ships in transit need to earn their keep.

 

[rickusn]

The USN doesnt keep extra escort ships around to account for maintenance schedules. That allotted time is built into Conceptual Fleet Organization and the deployment-refit-training-deploymernt life cycle of the ship and the fleet as a whole neither specifying or requiring extra ships to be in the force structure for such purposes.

I dont undertsand why the RN does if in fact they do.

To be sure there would be gaps in coverage to keep at-sea times within required op tempo limits.

But I dont see the reasoning to build two new highly capable carriers and keep them tethered to the UK and therefore assume they will spend much time deployed East of Suez in rotation with the Amphibious Task Group.

But of course this is sheer speculation on my part.

 

[mark22w]

But I dont see the reasoning to build two new highly capable carriers and keep them tethered to the UK and therefore assume they will spend much time deployed East of Suez in rotation with the Amphibious Task Group.

But of course this is sheer speculation on my part.

No disagreement here...

Looking at the deployment of Invincible class carriers (two in service and third refit / reserve), there were difficulties providing personnel for two. In reality the RN is down to one with Invincible unlikely to see service again and Ark under maintenance.

IMHO yes the new carriers will deploy east of Suez however it will probably be ad hoc. Unfortunately I see them more as a strategic asset and kept closer to home.

I believe as with the new amphibious assets where the RN has to consider doing more than delivering marines from a to b – the USN has much to offer here – the RN has to get back into the mindset of operating fully fledged carriers.

It is going to be a significant challenge doing all of this on a budget.

Hope I'm proved wrong. :hitwall

 

[rickusn]

Yes I fully understand your position. And quite concur. Although hoping for different.

Like you I too find it unfortunate.

But reality is what it is.

 

[Whiskyjack]

With the RN potentially down to 14-18 main/heavy surface combatants, will there be funding for a 12-18 corvette/LCS type ships to free up the rest of the ships for expeditionary duties?
I guess a Type 45 with PAAMS and LACMs would have more fire power than 2-3 earlier combatants with an ability to deploy 6 at any one time (with 18 being the total). With an LCS type ship able to conduct multiple missions, and the ability to carry detachments of RMs and spec forces, the RN would not be an insignificant force. Not to mention the CV(F) (if it is built…) and the SSNs.

Not easy to see the RN with so few ships.

 

[rickusn]

The RN doesnt appear to be interested.

But then with the Astutes, Darings, JSF and CVF's (not to mention trying to find funding for the MARS program) in the works they really dont have funding available for the forseeable future.

Also the bean-counters could look at an LCS program as a good excuse to not build anymore high-end warships at all.

Which (LOL I dont mean to be so pessimistic) could mean that speculatively could leave the RN with just six Darings and a dozen LCS(or less).

Im almost sure the RN doesnt want to risk that.

Also the bean-counters could skimp on the interchangeable modules leaving those ships not as useful as they are forseen to be in USN service.

 

[mark22w]

With the RN potentially down to 14-18 main/heavy surface combatants, will there be funding for a 12-18 corvette/LCS type ships to free up the rest of the ships for expeditionary duties?
I guess a Type 45 with PAAMS and LACMs would have more fire power than 2-3 earlier combatants with an ability to deploy 6 at any one time (with 18 being the total). With an LCS type ship able to conduct multiple missions, and the ability to carry detachments of RMs and spec forces, the RN would not be an insignificant force. Not to mention the CV(F) (if it is built…) and the SSNs.

Not easy to see the RN with so few ships.

Agreed. In a 14-18 fleet escort scenario I second rickusn that funding additional corvette/LCS units is going to be a big ask.

With T45 land attack, torpedos and Merlin capability deleted to save money, it’s probable the replacement frigate (8-12 units) will look to incorporate some elements of the LCS programme, on a much smaller scale.

Of course with the T45s having capacity for 60 RMs (and future surface combatants?) a T45 with say two ‘future frigates’ might provide an interesting strike group with air defence, surface strike and the ability to deploy 120+ troops. Gunboat diplomacy on an affordable scale.

Back to additional units, I can’t help but feel at best a few OPV(H) units under a leasing deal might be procured. My fear is politicians might even try to sell this as a Hi-Lo mix of escorts (helicopter capable) to keep total numbers in the 20-24 ball park.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Agreed. In a 14-18 fleet escort scenario I second rickusn that funding additional corvette/LCS units is going to be a big ask.

With T45 land attack, torpedos and Merlin capability deleted to save money, it’s probable the replacement frigate (8-12 units) will look to incorporate some elements of the LCS programme, on a much smaller scale.

Of course with the T45s having capacity for 60 RMs (and future surface combatants?) a T45 with say two ‘future frigates’ might provide an interesting strike group with air defence, surface strike and the ability to deploy 120+ troops. Gunboat diplomacy on an affordable scale.

Back to additional units, I can’t help but feel at best a few OPV(H) units under a leasing deal might be procured. My fear is politicians might even try to sell this as a Hi-Lo mix of escorts (helicopter capable) to keep total numbers in the 20-24 ball park.

Agree, the RN really needs to get to 20-24 T45 multi purpose hulls, this would make the RN far more powerful than it was even 20 years ago. The only issue is the lack of hulls that may need to be in more than one place!

 

[rickusn]

"Back to additional units, I can’t help but feel at best a few OPV(H) units under a leasing deal might be procured. My fear is politicians might even try to sell this as a Hi-Lo mix of escorts (helicopter capable) to keep total numbers in the 20-24 ball park."

Very possible. My fear is that they would look at the OPV(H) units as combatants and further reduce the frigate replacement program.

Then we could possibly be looking at 6 Type 45, 6 Replacement frigates and 4 or more OPV(H) ships.

But I sure hope the RN does not fall below 20 high-end surface combatants.

LOL Its a slippery slope but then it has been since the end of WWII. Has it not?

The USN has gone through and continues to face similar downsizing. Even if it doesnt seem quite as dramatic as some UK decisions such as the mid 1960's decision to give up fixed-wing carrier aviation.

Someday Im going to put together a chart and some concise commentary detailing both navies downsizing over the years.

Fortunately the Harrier aircraft program along with the Invincible class small carrier program mitigated the consequences somewhat.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Hull numbers are difficult these days. yes there are fewer ships, but each hull is potentially far more capable than any 3 hulls 25 years ago! Also as technology develops ships are available more, to keep 1 ship deployed, used to require 4 hulls, now it requires 3, and in the next decade 2.5 hulls? With a reduction of crew that goes with this.

To do that math, 10 hulls built in the next decade will be the equivalent of 16. And each one more capable, which theoretically could mean 10 hulls in the future are worth 32 hulls from the late 70s! The problem is that you don’t want these high end warships patrolling your EEZ, looking for drug smugglers or operating in a littoral environment that could be attacked by, artillery etc…

As you have rightly pointed out you also don’t want politicians to see the low end vessels as combatants! A tricky situation for any navy to be in, and one many navies are in!

 

[rickusn]

There are many issues as you point out.

Lets hope the right compromises are made at the right time for the right reasons.