UK Defence Forum

Caribbean wrote:Does anyone know how much the Government makes in license fees etc for a T26. Bet it's not that much. I doubt it's enough to finance another 4 or 5 T26 for the RN.

I'd bet nothing. But it doesn't matter, the MoD wouldn't have it added to their budget anyway.

Caribbean wrote: dmereifield wrote:
isn't the point of T31 that we want to actually built ships in the UK and export them, rather than just export the design (aka T26). Much better return to UK plc that way


Precisely. Though there is some money to be made in the Damen model of "assisted foreign build", it's not as lucrative (in overall national terms ) as building ships ourselves. Aus. and Canada have their own industrial capacity, so we won't be making much (as a nation) beyond a share of the license fees.

Bae is on paper thin margins building the Type 26. Government rules set the maximum allowed profit margin for their single source/open book contract. Why do you think orders for complete T26 from abroad would suddenly open the money gates?

True Australia & Canada have their own industrial capacities but they'll still be buying the gas turbines from the UK and the diesels from Rolls-Royce MTU Germany. Many other systems and components will be UK sourced. That's why it's good news for the UK.

Ron5 wrote:Many other systems and components will be UK sourced.

Yes- fair point - and some of that will find it's way into the national economy, though not so much for the RR-sourced stuff, which will primarily benefit the German economy. Also, unfortunately, a lot of the more expensive kit in the Australian version will be Aus and US-sourced. I haven't had a chance to look at the details of the Canadian project, but I suspect that there will be a lot of non-UK sourced kit in there as well. However, the overall point is sound.

So overall, a good thing and certainly good for national prestige, but not as beneficial as some seem to think (and arguably, only of indirect benefit to the RN). Personally I would argue that now is precisely the right time to offer a lower-priced option, aimed at both those on the cusp of self-sufficiency as well as the non-self-sufficient nations, to build on this boost to the national reputation. Both the BAE and Babcock offerings for the T31e would seem to have potential (though different) markets.

Caribbean wrote:

Ron5 wrote:Many other systems and components will be UK sourced.

So overall, a good thing and certainly good for national prestige, but not as beneficial as some seem to think (and arguably, only of indirect benefit to the RN). Personally I would argue that now is precisely the right time to offer a lower-priced option, aimed at both those on the cusp of self-sufficiency as well as the non-self-sufficient nations, to build on this boost to the national reputation. Both the BAE and Babcock offerings for the T31e would seem to have potential (though different) markets.

I agree that this is the time we should capitalise on the success and hit the 2nd tier market but to me the 2 offerings at the moment don't really compete with what's on offer in the FTI PPA and potentialy the FFGX.
This is where like others have said we should use the investment on the T26 design and put more in to use the basics from the T26 ( hull form, super stuctor basic layout ) to design a smaller cheaper 2nd tier version and use this as means to say its based on the very capable and successful T26

Caribbean wrote:

Ron5 wrote:Many other systems and components will be UK sourced.

Yes- fair point - and some of that will find it's way into the national economy, though not so much for the RR-sourced stuff, which will primarily benefit the German economy. Also, unfortunately, a lot of the more expensive kit in the Australian version will be Aus and US-sourced. I haven't had a chance to look at the details of the Canadian project, but I suspect that there will be a lot of non-UK sourced kit in there as well. However, the overall point is sound.

So overall, a good thing and certainly good for national prestige, but not as beneficial as some seem to think (and arguably, only of indirect benefit to the RN). Personally I would argue that now is precisely the right time to offer a lower-priced option, aimed at both those on the cusp of self-sufficiency as well as the non-self-sufficient nations, to build on this boost to the national reputation. Both the BAE and Babcock offerings for the T31e would seem to have potential (though different) markets.

Link gives some details of contractors involved :

https://www.baesystems.com/en-ca/articl ... e--strong-

Ron5 wrote:
I'd bet nothing. But it doesn't matter, the MoD wouldn't have it added to their budget anyway.

Maybe, maybe not but the important thing is that it proves that investment pays off. Either directly or indirectly I believe HMG will receive a cash injection due to the 24 exports. Even if that amounts to £25m a hull over time that's £600m, a not insignificant sum.

I would like to see a similar amount used to design the best Tier 2 Frigate in the world, based on the T26 hull. It worked with the T26 why not with the T31?

If the T31 has to happen lets do it properly or not at all....

Jake1992 wrote:the 2 offerings at the moment don't really compete with what's on offer in the FTI PPA and potentialy the FFGX

No - they are aimed at a different market

Jake1992 wrote:This is where like others have said we should use the investment on the T26 design and put more in to use the basics from the T26 ( hull form, super stuctor basic layout ) to design a smaller cheaper 2nd tier version and use this as means to say its based on the very capable and successful T26

Though I like the idea, I remain to be convinced about the financial/commercial aspects. I suspect that it will take design time that we do not have (plenty of work yet in the Aus/ Candian variants and in the T45 replacement) and quite a large investment, at the end of which we will have a product that is likely to be more expensive than the ships that it is competing directly against and in an already crowded sector of the market (as you have pointed out).

In it's current guise, the T26 is winning because it's a top-tier ASW asset (even so, both the countries that bought it want to change quite a lot about it). A cut-down version risks being seen as too focussed on RN needs in a market full of adaptable designs.

Poiuytrewq wrote:If the T31 has to happen lets do it properly

So what are your criteria for "properly"?

Edit: Apologies - just realised this is T26 News thread - time to move to general discussion?

Caribbean wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:the 2 offerings at the moment don't really compete with what's on offer in the FTI PPA and potentialy the FFGX

No - they are aimed at a different market

Jake1992 wrote:This is where like others have said we should use the investment on the T26 design and put more in to use the basics from the T26 ( hull form, super stuctor basic layout ) to design a smaller cheaper 2nd tier version and use this as means to say its based on the very capable and successful T26

Though I like the idea, I remain to be convinced about the financial/commercial aspects. I suspect that it will take design time that we do not have (plenty of work yet in the Aus/ Candian variants and in the T45 replacement) and quite a large investment, at the end of which we will have a product that is likely to be more expensive than the ships that it is competing directly against and in an already crowded sector of the market (as you have pointed out).

In it's current guise, the T26 is winning because it's a top-tier ASW asset (even so, both the countries that bought it want to change quite a lot about it). A cut-down version risks being seen as too focussed on RN needs in a market full of adaptable designs.

The T31 is aiming at the second tier mark which as it stands has conpetion such as FTI and PPA, the current T31s in the form of the current Leander seems to aiming at a marking that isn't really there, it's too large and long rang for the covert market yet arguably too small and under equipped for the 2nd tier market like FTI.

A smaller T26 with out the dedicated mission bay say a combine hanger and mission space, Merlin flight deck reduced asw and optional weapons fit would be just as flexible as the FTI. Could this be done for around £450-£500m it's hard to say but I believe it could be do able.

What we need are 3 vessels for 3 export markets -
1 - T26 for hight end tier 1 market

2 - smaller stripped down T26 based vessel as descused above for the mid range tier 2 market

3 - a flexible Venair design that can do from 70m to 115m for the OPV multi mission sloop or covert market

Like I said the current T31 seems to try and fit between market 2 and 3 too much for 3 but not enough for 2

But we are getting way off topic so we should move this convo to the current and future escort thread

Moved across to escorts thread

Noticed the type 26 Canadian win is not getting much coverage in the news ,seemed there was a lot more when the Australians picked the type26 derivative ,still I'd be happy to except no coverage and Brazil picked 5 and chile /NZ a couple each also lol

inch wrote:Noticed the type 26 Canadian win is not getting much coverage in the news ,seemed there was a lot more when the Australians picked the type26 derivative ,still I'd be happy to except no coverage and Brazil picked 5 and chile /NZ a couple each also lol

Yes it is odd, I scanned the UK dailies and could not find a mention anywhere.

Couple of Brexit articles tho

Could it be because the T26 is the preferred bidder & is not yet a 100% done deal ? obviously I do hope the contract is signed soon.

More likely doesn’t fit with the we’re doomed brexit narrative the media are fixated with at present.

Think bae should pitch a type26 derivative at the Germans for there future180mks frigate program, it can't hurt to try ,might get cheaper with more on board ,and it's got to be as good as they would have designed I'm sure

inch wrote:Think bae should pitch a type26 derivative at the Germans for there future180mks frigate program, it can't hurt to try ,might get cheaper with more on board ,and it's got to be as good as they would have designed I'm sure

The Type 26 design is actually one of the final 2 competitors in the running for this programme. BAES has teamed up with German Naval Yard in the bidding process. The other left in the competition is Blöhm & Voss which has teamed up with DAMEN. This is a very difficult one for Germany as their own TKMS was thrown out of the competition and only foreign designs are left.

serge750 wrote:Could it be because the T26 is the preferred bidder & is not yet a 100% done deal ? obviously I do hope the contract is signed soon.

The preferred bidder status is the same case as for Australia. Its normal in procurement for the competition winner to go through a rigorous technical and financial assessment prior to final contract. Agree on the oddity of absence from MSM - too busy with Brexit doom no doubt.

Ok cheers matt00773 , hopefully it wouldn't make a difference and the best design should win but I cant see a type26 derivative winning over a European / Dutch collaboration ,might just be 2 unpalatable with brexit and the European dream etc but saying that I do think bae should be trying because it's a cracking design and starting to get some traction now and think would be great for Germany after their mess up with there other frigate/destroyers ,when is the decision expected ?

Ron5 wrote:

inch wrote:Noticed the type 26 Canadian win is not getting much coverage in the news ,seemed there was a lot more when the Australians picked the type26 derivative ,still I'd be happy to except no coverage and Brazil picked 5 and chile /NZ a couple each also lol

Yes it is odd, I scanned the UK dailies and could not find a mention anywhere.

Couple of Brexit articles tho

If you disregard the 'editors note' (which I always do due to his bias) not one word in the article refers to BAE. I fully understand that the so called 'prime' is LM but they are just fronting up for a BAE design. Also BAE had no qualms in giving the intellectual property rights to Australia on completion of build, so why would there be any problems in regards to Canada

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ender.html

That editor's note is brilliant. The bitterness is so very obvious.

First sections of HMS Glasgow Looking good

Interesting that the Canadian seems to have misplaced its magnetron death ray masts on the hanger roof. No idea what they are and if someone explained I probably wouldn't understand

Sunk at Narvik wrote:Interesting that the Canadian seems to have misplaced its magnetron death ray masts on the hanger roof. No idea what they are and if someone explained I probably wouldn't understand

Standard RN torpedo self defense decoy launchers.

If only 10%, what gives them the right to sell a BAE ship as a Lockheed Martin one?

SKB wrote:If only 10%, what gives them the right to sell it as a Lockheed Martin product?

Not sure what you mean here. Lockheed is team lead on the T26 CSC team, they are integrating the platform provided by BAE with sensors/systems from other team members, and the actual construction will be by Irving.