Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

[donald_of_tokyo]

So the upshot is we get 8 type 26 slightly more suitable for asw or we could have had 16 fremm for the same price or there abouts and not have to spend on type 31 or use money too up arm the fremm more or spend on something else needed ,people might say well its prob going to be best asw frigate but I'm sure France thinks there's is up to the job of protecting their navy ,just a thought

I do not understand what you said. French FREMM unit cost is 670M Euro = 583M GBP, excluding design cost, and T26 is estimated to be 730M GBP. So, T26 is 27% expensive than French FREMM. Not twice. Also, to buy FREMM with that cost, you may need to order it from France.

For your comparison, France is paying 9.5B Euro (=8.2B GBP) for 11 (9 FREMM and 2 FREDA), to my understanding. 3 more hulls, with only 200M GBP more cost. Yes, FREMM is more attractive I agree. (That is why I was against mission bays and 24 (not 16) VLSs). But, 11 hulls vs 8 hulls is 38% increase. In other words, if T26 is 30-40% capable than FREMM, it is flat.

I personally do not think T26 is 30-40% more capable than FREMM. But I do think British ship building industry is "a little" behind those of France (UK did not paid for it in the past), which I think taking up 15% or so. Then, is T26 15-25% more capable than FREMM? ....... Not bad, I guess ....

[serge750]

Hi guys

Great couple of weeks for the RN, carrier trials, Announcement of the T26, Does that mean it is set in stone that we will definitly be getting the strike length vertical launch silo's? 48 CAMM's or are they subject to change even though steel is due to be cut in august....?

[Ron5]

George Osborne said when he was C of E that he wanted one complex ship built every two years. You can view his Portsmouth interview when he reiterated that statement.

Fallon has stated clearly that the Type 31 will follow on from the T26. No concurrent build.

Easy to conclude that:

a) the T26s will cost more than they could or should, because they are being built to a Treasury imposed two year drumbeat. No economies of production. The last will cost the same as the first plus inflation. We've already seen that with the Astutes. According to the Parliamentary defence committee, enough money was wasted by this practice to have bought an additional submarine.

b) one launch every two years with a 30 year ship life, gives an escort fleet of 15 warships

c) the layoffs that will occur on the Clyde as the T26 program ends and the T31 starts, means the end of complex warship building in the UK. Parker's proposal for lego warship building will not be economically or technically feasible for T45 & T26 replacement classes.

[FuNsTeR]

the article i saw was quoting £3.7 billion for the first 3 type 26s that's £1.2 billion per ship or 2 FREMMs for the price of 1 type 26, that is a hefty price tag, i'm hoping the £4.7 billion quoted on the telegraph is for all 8 and the article i saw was wrong

I read two numbers
- £3.7B, which is including the money already payed (for long lead items), as well as design costs. See Defencenews:

The £3.7 billion price tag for the three ships includes money already spent on long-lead items, ongoing development costs and some infrastructure work being paid for by the MoD at BAE’s two yards in Glasgow, Scotland, where the warships will be built. (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/bae ... e-frigates)

- £4.7B, referred in dailymail, telegraph.

I guess former is the right number, but only guess. But anyway will be clear in due course.


£3.7B for 3 hull including the development cost, is just as expected and not too expensive. For example, if we assume the unit cost is £730M, design cost (2-3 unit cost) will be £1.45-2.2B, and 3 unit costs will be 2.2B. Thus, £3.7B is exactly on the line for "2-unit equivalent design cost" + "3 unit cost". Even in FREMM, the design cost amounted to ~3 unit cost, so there is no big problem here.

Comparing "the FREMM final unit cost" to "the T26 cost including design and 3 hull simple divided by 3", is simply a mistake. On the other hand, if you think £730M per unit is too costy, I have no objection.

another source it gets even worse
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/three-f ... -1-4492329

the next batch of 5 is expected to cost over £5 billion, we could buy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers at that price

[MRCA]

According to the type 26 program director on twitter earlier, the 3.7b includes only the long lead supplier costs from the previous phases. Exactly how much the 1.7b we've current spent on this program is hard to say. Also we were told that things like artisan and towed sonars were supposed to transferred from type 23 to keep cost down are these included in the 3.7b or is the actual cost of these ships higher than the headline figure.

[Jdam]

What's the motive for lumping some of the costs already sunk into the project and announcing it with the rest of the contract today?

[Jensy]

What's the motive for lumping some of the costs already sunk into the project and announcing it with the rest of the contract today?

Shareholders like big numbers, taxpayers like small ones. Unfortunately BAE's press release http://www.baesystems.com/en/article/ma ... ae-systems doesn't seem to know which audience it's aimed at, or to be particularly clear on details, such as putting "c3.7bn" in the title but not mentioning it once in the body text.

When drafting by committee meets poorly informed, overworked journos it's hard to work out what's going on.

Jensy

[Aethulwulf]

In the mind of any journalist or press officer,
"MOD places £3.7b order"
is a better story/headline than
"MOD places £2.3b order, on top of £1.4b already spent."

[SDL]

Less letters, easier to fit on a page...

Who cares about accuracy in the media...

[dmereifield]

In the mind of any journalist or press officer,
"MOD places £3.7b order"
is a better story/headline than
"MOD places £2.3b order, on top of £1.4b already spent."

Struggling to understand the figures banded around, are you 100% sure that the new outlay for the first 3 is £2.3b more than what has already been committed/spent? Thanks

[SDL]

In the mind of any journalist or press officer,
"MOD places £3.7b order"
is a better story/headline than
"MOD places £2.3b order, on top of £1.4b already spent."

Struggling to understand the figures banded around, are you 100% sure that the new outlay for the first 3 is £2.3b more than what has already been committed/spent? Thanks

This seems to indicate to me that the amount is including money already spent/allocated...

[Ron5]

What's the motive for lumping some of the costs already sunk into the project and announcing it with the rest of the contract today?

It's part of the MoD/Treasury conspiracy to deprive you and your members of parliament enough detailed information to criticize their spending behavior. Let me expand on that.

A few years ago when the NAO (an independent body tasked with providing you with unbiased financial data) provided a good deal more detail on MoD projects. Detail like the actual build price for each ship, tank or aircraft, costs of support contracts, cost of research and design. Without much accounting knowledge, it was easy to make embarrassing conclusions. For example, the T45's order was reduced because "the UK can't afford more one billion pound warships". The actual build cost, separated from all the sunk costs associated with decades of MoD & Government nonsense like the abortive Horizon program, was around 630 million which made them price comparable with other nations warships of similar capability. Even now, folks on this board talk about the billion pound T45.

Nowadays, shipbuilding costs are lumped together under one figure so it's impossible for us to work out how much of this contract is for actually building the ships vs designing them vs political meddling vs support contracts for their first few years of life. When the NAO report on MoD spending rolls around, you will not see any line that states the expected UPC (unit production cost). But you will hear plenty of leaks about how Bae is ripping off the tax payer.

All directly 180 degree opposite to the principles of open government and freedom of information.

For any doubters, it's easy to check, the NAO reports going back many years are available online. See the detail in the earlier reports compared to what is given today.

[SKB]

Time to nationalise BAE again...

[Ron5]

In the mind of any journalist or press officer,
"MOD places £3.7b order"
is a better story/headline than
"MOD places £2.3b order, on top of £1.4b already spent."

Struggling to understand the figures banded around, are you 100% sure that the new outlay for the first 3 is £2.3b more than what has already been committed/spent? Thanks

This seems to indicate to me that the amount is including money already spent/allocated...

So it includes the costs of upgrading the shipyards & the onshore facilities that include a complete drive train? That's probably well over half a billion in itself.

[abc123]

no chances of selling any to other countries at them prices ,Canada will go fremm and Australia will go navantia that's the way I see it maybe Australia fremm also ?,but neither will go type26 route they would be insane at them prices only the uk is that crazy folks,next will be 550million for each type31 extended opv with a bit bigger gun and no hangar

Yep. Nobody will buy Type 26 except the UK, and even the UK is not sure with these prices...

[abc123]

Time to nationalise BAE again...

Fully agreed. This is a damned ripoff..

[Aethulwulf]

In the mind of any journalist or press officer,
"MOD places £3.7b order"
is a better story/headline than
"MOD places £2.3b order, on top of £1.4b already spent."

Struggling to understand the figures banded around, are you 100% sure that the new outlay for the first 3 is £2.3b more than what has already been committed/spent? Thanks

Sorry, no.

[2HeadsBetter]

Notice how there's no talk of 5 OR MORE Type 31s anymore.

[abc123]

Notice how there's no talk of 5 OR MORE Type 31s anymore.

Nobody ever believed that...

[SDL]

In the mind of any journalist or press officer,
"MOD places £3.7b order"
is a better story/headline than
"MOD places £2.3b order, on top of £1.4b already spent."

Struggling to understand the figures banded around, are you 100% sure that the new outlay for the first 3 is £2.3b more than what has already been committed/spent? Thanks

Sorry, no.

No you're not sure or no it doesn't? If it's the latter, can you show me what it is that tells you this?

Everything (apart from this thread) is pointing to the £3.7bn being the 3 T26s and the costs of starting production... I've seen nothing that suggests it's just for the three T26s

[abc123]

costs of upgrading the shipyards & the onshore facilities .

What costs?

[shark bait]

This weekend we have learnt a Type 26 frigate costs between £800m and £1,200m.

We're not much better off than our previous guestimates.

[abc123]

This weekend we have learnt a Type 26 frigate costs between £800m and £1,200m.

We're not much better off than our previous guestimates.

IMHO, I don't believe the MODs claims that theis number includes previous costs. No any sence to include costs from say 2010 in this contract...

[shark bait]

It's very shady, they're doing it to hide the real cost, foul tactics

[abc123]

It's very shady, they're doing it to hide the real cost, foul tactics

I could understand if they were saying that they want to subsidyse the shipyards or keep the Scots happy, but this is a perversion. Paying more than billion USD per ship for half-equipped frigate ( no ship-ship missiles, no torpedos ), with allmost no new things to develop ( Artisan, Sonar 2087, CAAM, turbines, engines, Tomahawk, Mk45 etc.- evereything developed LOONG time ago and mostly allready in use by the RN ) there- how the fu** can these ships cost so much? If they started re-inventing the wheel it couldn't cost so much...