NickC wrote: Jake1992 wrote: NickC wrote:
RN next generation AAW destroyer thoughts, if RN had the funding we could build the equivalent of the new Chinese ~13,000t Type 055s with its 112 VLS cells, but we don't, its being spent on Dreadnought and F-35s, RN surface ships existing on the crumbs left over. We need to take on board the recent lessons from the T26 and T45. T26 planned buy of the T26 cut from thirteen to eight due to the first three T26 costing the Treasury £4 billion, result five T31 only fitted out to OPV standard. The expensive T45 cut from twelve to six, with its next generation propulsion system, GT plus heat exchanger, was a disaster resulting most of T45s life sitting pier side and 100s of millions being spent on re-design and propulsion re-builds.
The above pattern of RN recent history with its new ships shows that the priority is to control costs by not taking gambles on untested new tech as with T45 AAW and no gold plating as happened with the T26 ASW eg expensive 30 m heavy flight deck as stressed to take full weight of a Chinook, large mission bay designed for Amphib and Dfid ops, 5" main gun with expensive automated magazine etc, etc., and then no new gen flat panel radars or IRST.
The raison d'etre of the new AAW destroyer will be defending the carriers, an AAW destroyer does not need any of the T26 gold plating or its expensive HED plus GT propulsion system and that's why advocate T4X based on the IH/T31 if Babcock can deliver, with its diesels giving it faster speed and longer range of ~3,000 nm more than a T26. Should note that the Italian Navy with their full fat variant of the new PPA frigate, similar in size to the IH/T31, will have the systems and new gen GaN flat panel radars plus Aster 30 Block 1NT to take out short range ballistic missiles, but only 16 VLS cells as its a multi-purpose frigate. T4X would be single purpose for AAW, would argue to take out the hanger to make more space for additional VLS cells as did the original Burke Flight I, why the need for helo if escorting carrier, not saying not nice to have but with RN limited funding the aim should be to build for lowest possible cost with first class systems for AAW and the capability with its large number of VLS cells to hopefully fit the FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) and so build more than the six T45s, maybe twelve T4X
The T26 numbers were cut due to 2 main reason 1 being the constant delays the other being the rediculse quoted price of £350m per unit, you are never going to get a top tier ASW vessel for £350m in the west. 2 of the T45 numbers were cut because HMG promised jam tomarrow with the T26 but instead cut the defence budget fooling the RN as often happens. Yes the problems with the inter coolers were a cock up but it was a risk of trying to stay on the cutting edge, these risks have to be taken from time to time else you end up being left behind.
The PPA while good vessel with decent AAW are going to be the Italian navy’s AAW vessel they plan to have 10,000 165m long AAW vessel as the recognise the need to the space.
What you are suggesting is using an older smaller design vessel in the hope of getting more not taking in to account the growth of radars or in the increased number of VLS needed to contented with AAW while every other major navy seems to see this need.
The RNs problem has been design 2 complete different vessels for AAW and ASW instead of using a common design fitted out to the different tasks. Having a continued build of the T26 hull to a different variant using the learning curve gained during the build will help keep costs down.
The Treasury cut the T26 buy from thirteen to eight for one reason only, cost, £4 billion for first three ships, due to MoD/RN near criminal incompetence in letting costs spiral out of control and gold plating the T26. Instead of £350 million per ship its £1.35 billion each for first three ships, no surprise the Treasury wielded the axe.
T45 with its flawed propulsion system said to cost £1 billion each, whereas the tiny Danish Navy managed to build approx three IH for less, though if allow for savings gained from steelwork built in eastern european shipyards and RDN doing the installation of some systems and integration themselves, so might say two IH for the cost of one T45 and they don't spend most of their time tied to pier side as the T45. You could make argument the IH has the better radar system, two bands, the L-band for long range volume search with the SMART-L, and the X-band APAR, with 3,000+ T/R modules in each of its four panel antennas. No doubt if RDN had the funding could buy the SM-6, besides the SM-2 and ESSM.
I'm puzzled on your comment that the IH/T31 is too small to fit new radars, which radars were you thinking of, the latest variant of SMART-L as fitted to IH is the SMART-L MM/N AESA GaN "designed to detect air, surface, and high-speed exo-atmospheric targets out to an instrumented range of 2,000 km, designed to operate in a number of rotating and staring modes to support volume air surveillance and/or BMD long-range search and track"
The IH/T31 "older smaller design vessel" as said is faster and with 40% longer cruise range, fewer crew but much more importantly CHEAPER than the expensive T26, understandable due its requirement for low noise propulsion system, hull etc, HED plus GT, not a requirement for an AAW ship. Re your point on using common hull have seen post by N-a-B, with vast experience in shipyards on SaveTheRoyalNavy, if remembering correctly expressed the view that's a fallacy as it always works out more expensive.
So say again if RN wants more than penny packet numbers of ships they have to be dedicated to control costs, that means single purpose /function ships with no gold plating.
Yes the T26s were cut due to increase cost but that was more to do with the budget being set at an unrealistic level, who ever in the treasury and MOD believed you could build them for £350m each were fools and who ever told them they could was lying through their teeth.
Even if you got rid of mission bay, Mk41s, 5” gun and shrunk the flight deck you still wouldn’t come close to £350m. No where in any western nation could you build a 1st tier ASW vessel for even close to that money not a chance in hell.
The T26s also won’t cost £1.35bn each, this is for the first 3 which also include long lead items, 3 extra TAS and design costs. The end price will be an average of £1bn each as the program is 8 for £8bn.
As Iv said up thread the T45 engineer debarcal was a cock up but at times you have to take that sort of risk to stay up front in these sort of areas or you get left behind, some times they pay off other times they do you in the arse.
One of the main reasons for the T45s size is to accommodate the much larger radar. Radars have been growing in size and power and this trend is set to continue.
There is a reason every major navy is looking at 10,000t plus designs for there next AAW vessel but your set that a 6,000t design that will be nearing 20 years old by the start of build would be best for the RN.
A few reason for such large vessels being looked at are the ever increasing radar size, ever increasing number of VLS needed, ever increasing power supply needed, the possibility of unmanned system being carried. Once all this is taken in to account there would be no growth room in the IH design.
You also have to remember the IH design is of the same generation as the T45, by the time T4X comes about the Danish will be in the middle of a new design themselves so why would we use they’re old one ?
How is using a common hull more expensive than several different designs ?
What hold platting would using theT26 design give to a T4X ?
I do agree with not using the same engine set up as that long with things like rafting would as you say be hold platting, but a change there does mean the rest of the design would add any gold plating.