UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Roders96
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Roders96 » 02 Dec 2019, 14:45

Strangely enough, I don't think the 32 mk41 upgrade is that much of a stretch if there's been 100m GFE per ship. We'll see it when it happens.

The silos don't have to be full, but two Type31's in a class that has previously demonstrated quad packed sp3 strikes against swarming targets would be a large deterrent to what we have seen recently. Each one could have 100 SP3 each and still have enough space for 28 camm each.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RichardIC » 02 Dec 2019, 17:45

Roders96 wrote:Each one could have 100 SP3 each and still have enough space for 28 camm each.


Pity Vertical Launch SP3 doesn't exist, isn't being developed, hasn't been proposed and isn't funded.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11074
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Dec 2019, 17:48

Roders96 wrote: I don't think the 32 mk41 upgrade is that much of a stretch [b]if there's been 100m GFE per ship.[/b]

[b]
Is that a fact
[/b], or speculation?

Roders96
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Roders96 » 03 Dec 2019, 00:22

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Roders96 wrote: I don't think the 32 mk41 upgrade is that much of a stretch [b]if there's been 100m GFE per ship.[/b]

[b]
Is that a fact
[/b], or speculation?


Just going off what has previously discussed in here. 500m has appeared from somewhere and it isn't going to Babcock!

RichardIC wrote:
Roders96 wrote:Each one could have 100 SP3 each and still have enough space for 28 camm each.


Pity Vertical Launch SP3 doesn't exist, isn't being developed, hasn't been proposed and isn't funded.


Similar was said about T31 itself not long ago. Amazing what happens when things become cost-effective! Treasury is far more likely to get on board with new munitions if it makes better use of existing stockpiles.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11074
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Dec 2019, 05:15

Roders96 wrote:500m has appeared from somewhere and it isn't going to Babcock!


Been wondering about this same thing...

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RichardIC » 03 Dec 2019, 07:07

:think:
Roders96 wrote:Similar was said about T31 itself not long ago. Amazing what happens when things become cost-effective!


T31 (although it didn’t yet have the name) was specifically written into SDSR 2015.

Surfaced launched Spear 3 is a fantasy weapon.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 03 Dec 2019, 07:43

RichardIC wrote:Surfaced launched Spear 3 is a fantasy weapon.

Not in development, but not entirely fantasy - it's in MBDA's mind as a potential future development - from TD
In a maritime context, MBDA has shown an artist’s impression of SPEAR with a booster, quad packed into a CAMM launch cell. This means customers of the CAMM system will be able to easily deploy an all-weather land attack and anti-surface guided weapon, a weapon with a multi-mode seeker, tactical data link and range in excess of 100km and one that can hit moving targets. Smaller vessels will be able to pack a serious punch with very little positioning, top weight and efflux management issues.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11074
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Dec 2019, 08:31

Caribbean wrote:efflux management issues.
Would that be a claim "too far", effortlessly going from a cold launch CAMM to a hot-launch SP3, both quadpacked, which is bound to restrict options for efflux mgt?

Roders96
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Roders96 » 03 Dec 2019, 08:35

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Caribbean wrote:efflux management issues.
Would that be a claim "too far", effortlessly going from a cold launch CAMM to a hot-launch SP3, both quadpacked, which is bound to restrict options for efflux mgt?


Could SP3 be cold launched also? Would it depend on the VLS itself?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 03 Dec 2019, 15:14

Very little efflux management issues means cold launch as does sharing CAMM VLS.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 04 Dec 2019, 03:27

For me we need to get type 31 into service with the 57mm 2 x 40mm and 24 CAMM then we should look to fit the naval ship missile as soon as we can . This would give us a good ship capable of area defence of its self and others around it plus some land attack

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2004
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 04 Dec 2019, 09:20

Tempest414 wrote:This would give us a good ship capable of area defence


As long as it’s above water...
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 04 Dec 2019, 15:31

Ron5 wrote:Just a couple of comments:

Sir Humphrey is a prize prat whose sole purpose is to deify the civil service. Most of what he writes is also bullshit and should be ignored.



Which means he actually knows what hes talking about and doesn't concur with your views .......

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11074
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Dec 2019, 16:22

Pongoglo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Just a couple of comments:

Sir Humphrey is a prize prat whose sole purpose is to deify the civil service. Most of what he writes is also bullshit and should be ignored.




Pongoglo wrote:Which means he actually knows what hes talking about and doesn't concur with your views .......


Totally aside ;) from the thread's headline: Mr Angry from Tunbridge Wells (or Huitsin Nevada?) is very welcome as without such 'eccentric' ... er, often well-informed views, these pages would be devoid of active discussion.

By that I mean for & against; while we might still get to be well informed of what is being reported around the world - but more and more of those 'messages' or facts are paid for by the dominant companies. In Defence: not that many.

And as we know from Russian propaganda, what is coming at you, from all angles, though not necessarily in a coherent form, does not matter as the "truth" will just be lost in the noise.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 04 Dec 2019, 16:54

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Pongoglo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Just a couple of comments:

Sir Humphrey is a prize prat whose sole purpose is to deify the civil service. Most of what he writes is also bullshit and should be ignored.




Pongoglo wrote:Which means he actually knows what hes talking about and doesn't concur with your views .......


Totally aside ;) from the thread's headline: Mr Angry from Tunbridge Wells (or Huitsin Nevada?) is very welcome as without such 'eccentric' ... er, often well-informed views, these pages would be devoid of active discussion.

By that I mean for & against; while we might still get to be well informed of what is being reported around the world - but more and more of those 'messages' or facts are paid for by the dominant companies. In Defence: not that many.

And as we know from Russian propaganda, what is coming at you, from all angles, though not necessarily in a coherent form, does not matter as the "truth" will just be lost in the noise.


Was always so but now those with long enough boots can wade through the bull and occasionally hit his toe on a rock of truth thanks to the bottomless supply of internet data,.

Angry of Sahuarita, Arizona

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Dec 2019, 16:56

I really hope the T-26 "City" class evolves as the batches are ordered. The first three will make fine ASW platforms but there do not make the maximum use of the design. I would like to see the next batch at least remove the Sea Ceptor Mushrooms and add an additional Mk41 and yes adopt the ExLS system, initially the four round insert module.

Using ExLS has to be the simples way of fitting Sea Ceptor to other vessels due to its compactness and scalability. With each three cell standalone to have twelve missiles and these can be installed almost anywhere, and there spears to be far less debris form each launch compared to the existing launchers. And no I am not sponsored by the manufacturer. :)

NickC
Member
Posts: 552
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 05 Dec 2019, 14:23

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:F110 looks similar to earlier T26 design variant of new gen T23 before increased in size for large amphib/mission bay and large Chinook flight deck etc.


Hmmm, they don't need the Global Cruiser, do they
- do we?
- I think we do. Esp. as the next batches can be optimised to be "leaning into" different roles. Not saying "AAW"... as that will come later, but: possibly before the 8th unit ;)
Err, onto the right thread... plenty quick!


Moved from T31 News

Apples to oranges but if we take the Spanish F110 total budget for the five full fat ASW frigates including the build and development costs of 4,317 million euros, approx £3,700 million, which is the BAE contract cost for three T26s, are you saying that you would stick with decision for 3 T26 'Global Cruisers' verse the past possible option of 5 new gen option T23/T26, if we can assume BAE could have matched F110 budget, very big assumption.

'can be optimised to be "leaning into" different roles. Not saying "AAW"... '
Intrigued as to what other roles thinking for T26 other than AAW, my thought using the T31 HM&E would be a much more cost effective basis for an AAW destroyer (Iver Huitfeldt class) and if necessary small plug for 64 VLS cells than using the expensive T26 ASW quiet HED propulsion HM&E, can see no need for a costly quiet propulsion system for AAW frigate/destroyer. What do you think would be the advantages of using T26 as basis of AAW destroyer to justify its higher cost?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 05 Dec 2019, 15:03

There is a number of things that need to be worked though here the F-110 at a cost of say 450 million is around the cost of FTI which in its self is a cheaper down grade option to FREMM so my question would be what have the F-110 team side stepped to come in at this price.

As for T-31 given a budget of 400 million it could be really nice ship for the RN it could have had looked more like this

Good radar
Good CMS
Good Hull mounted sonar
Merlin capable hangar
Chinook capable fight deck
1 x 5" main gun , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 x CAMM , 8 x NSM

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Dec 2019, 15:41

I wonder if the new design has any structural similarities to the Norwegian Frigates, one of which seems to suffer far greater damage from a collision than say a USN vessel involved in a similar incident but with a bigger vessels? The fact that the Spanish will have little or no infrastructure to put in place to start building these new ships and have a large trained workforce has got to help keep costs down. The fact that these new vessels are and evolutionary design would also help. There are probably a number of factors that we cannot see that also influence the price but doing any comparison to what we could build for the same price is pretty much pointless.

NickC
Member
Posts: 552
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 05 Dec 2019, 17:11

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder if the new design has any structural similarities to the Norwegian Frigates, one of which seems to suffer far greater damage from a collision than say a USN vessel involved in a similar incident but with a bigger vessels? The fact that the Spanish will have little or no infrastructure to put in place to start building these new ships and have a large trained workforce has got to help keep costs down. The fact that these new vessels are and evolutionary design would also help. There are probably a number of factors that we cannot see that also influence the price but doing any comparison to what we could build for the same price is pretty much pointless.


Good point if the Navantia learnt lessons from the sinking of the HNoMS Helge Ingstad and are incorporated into the F110, did read strong suggestion that the hollow propeller shaft tubes allowed flooding of adjacent 'water tight' compartments, needs investigation into ship stability, bilge system etc., Ingstad was a derivative of Navantia F100 design.

Tempest414 wrote:There is a number of things that need to be worked though here the F-110 at a cost of say 450 million is around the cost of FTI which in its self is a cheaper down grade option to FREMM so my question would be what have the F-110 team side stepped to come in at this price.


IF the build cost of F110 is approx £450 million, there could be other reasons than Navantia side stepped certain items to come in at this price

A. Good design practice as the Danes with Iver Huitfeldt class, if understand correctly total cost was $1,150 million ~£890 million for the three ships, less than the cost of a single T45?

B. Efficient shipyards - the Damen MD estimated USN was paying about three times the price of comparable Royal Netherlands Navy vessels.

Iver Huitfeldt briefing
https://web.archive.org/web/20150715032 ... 202014.pdf

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 06 Dec 2019, 10:03

NickC wrote:IF the build cost of F110 is approx £450 million, there could be other reasons than Navantia side stepped certain items to come in at this price

A. Good design practice as the Danes with Iver Huitfeldt class, if understand correctly total cost was $1,150 million ~£890 million for the three ships, less than the cost of a single T45?

B. Efficient shipyards - the Damen MD estimated USN was paying about three times the price of comparable Royal Netherlands Navy vessels.

Iver Huitfeldt briefing
https://web.archive.org/web/20150715032 ... 202014.pdf


There could be a number of reasons I agree but we all know that Navantia is well sursportted by the Spanish gov so my guess is that F-110 real cost is closer to 600 million when all things are placed on the table. As for the IH class we know that part of the low cost came from having the hulls built in East Europe and fitted out in a naval ship yard and we also know that most top end escorts in the West cost some where between 600 and 900 million to build

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5864
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 06 Dec 2019, 12:01

Roders96 wrote:On a side note - are there any historic threads in this forum discussing what kind of capabilities would be required to counter Iran's speedboat flotilla?


Look at the Battle of Bubiyan. TLDR; get a Helicopter!
@LandSharkUK

NickC
Member
Posts: 552
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 06 Dec 2019, 12:56

Tempest414 wrote: As for the IH class we know that part of the low cost came from having the hulls built in East Europe and fitted out in a naval ship yard and we also know that most top end escorts in the West cost some where between 600 and 900 million to build


The Danes did have the Iver Huitfeldt class hulls built in eastern european shipyards and the Danish Navy themselves took on the integration to keep within their tight budget (very impressed Danish Navy had the in-house expertise).

If you take the USN NAVSEA SEA 05C Cost Engineering and Industrial Analysis Division figures for ship build costs as in right ballpark quotes cost of Hull as 8% and similarly Integration & Engineering 8%, so assuming Danes saved 25% by having hull built in eastern europe, giving 2% saving plus the 8% for in-house I & E would give total saving of 10% on build cost.

The actual total cost of the three Iver Huitfeldt class ships $1,150 million and adding on 10% for above savings gives $1,265 million, approx £1 billion, £333 million per ship which is way below your "top end escorts in the West cost some where between 600 and 900 million to build" it shows how the Danish design can move the metric to a lower level by £200-300 million per ship, makes the T45 if as reputed £1 billion per ship look very expensive.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 06 Dec 2019, 13:34

What is also important to note is, however, to look into the escorts Naval group in French, Navantia in Spain, and Fincantierri in Italy designed and built AFTER the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate was built.

Apparently, they do not follow the cost reduction of Danish Danes, and still they are competitive in export market.

Note that Naval is "stealing" good design of Dutch Damen, and Navantia also shows concepts "learnt (or stolen)" from other ship yards. They are very eager to "learn" and make themselves competitive. Innovation is naturally shared (or learned or stolen), but here there was no learning yet.

This clearly (at least for me) means, Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate design is lacking "something", on which all this top-tier ship builders ignored to "learn". It is not clear yet, though.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2004
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 06 Dec 2019, 19:39

The only thing for me with the T31 choice is that if you can build a Iver Huitfeldt Mk2 you can build a Absalon Mk2, and that is where the RN (+RM) does have a need.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jake1992 and 15 guests