Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[serge750]

Thanks jake that's what I thought aswell, I thought it was only the rafts with the springs under the engines etc that reduce vibrations (noise) that were the expensive bits, could these be replaced so the diesel & gas turbine be kept? I just have visions of a major redesign of the engine spaces etc costing more than keeping broadly the same set up ! ala omitting the gun on the typhoon scenario from what I read..true or not depends on who I believe

[shark bait]

If you're swapping the propulsion you may as well start from scratch. It's a massive change, and there is no benefit to it.

Furthermore there it's a great benefit having a quiet destroyer, I can't imagine it would worth the engineering cost to redesign every mounting point only to save spending on a few rubber feet.

[RetroSicotte]

The idea of the solution for the Royal Navy being to make entirely low end bargain basement ships with low capability is one I find entirely unfeasible.

Type 26 is not "gold plated" at all. This mentality that its some sort of world stopping bleeding edge standard really needs to disappear with the same one that keeps calling it a cruiser. Other than its acoustic quieting and mission bay, it's distinctly average as a warship. Its costs are all down to incompetent procurement.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...Other than its acoustic quieting and mission bay, it's distinctly average as a warship. Its costs are all down to incompetent procurement.

I think the
1- acoustic quieting
2- chinook capable flight deck (~30m long)
3- and mission bay
are exactly the "gold-plating" people think. (Adding 24 Mk.41 VLS is kind of average as a 1st Tier escort these days).
Larger hull needs large generator, and hence more difficult to make it quiet, and hence more costy.

Looking at the export success, its idea shall have some rationale. But, at least item-2 and 3 make T26 far from "a simple T23 replacement". In other words, reduction in number is natural. I think, if 13 T23 to be replaced by 11 T26, it MUST HAVE BEEN good..

# It would have been even better, so that it will appeal to the public that RN lacks escort, and hence needs more investments.

But, RN stick to "19 escort saga" by inventing the T31 program, stealing 2B GBP from T26, making its build rate lower by 25-37.5% (if with 10 or 11 hulls, respectively) and inefficient, and hence costy. THIS IS (one of) the reasons for "incompetent procurement."

Blaming Treasury is very easy. Asking for more money must be continued. No objection.

But, learning from the past is also very important. RN/MOD must be realistic. Losing build efficiency by hoping more (in vain) is just bad thing.

[RetroSicotte]

] I think the
1- acoustic quieting
2- chinook capable flight deck (~30m long)
3- and mission bay
are exactly the "gold-plating" people think. (Adding 24 Mk.41 VLS is kind of average as a 1st Tier escort these days).

Its displacement is not all that huge (Remember RN states it's 6,900, average size escort today) radar is average (verging on below average by the time these boats hit the water), its sonars are standard fit for modern ASW, its missiles are decent but not exactly world beating, it lacks anything but local air defence, uses CODLOG, only has 24 Mk41 (that it also has to use for 8x AShM because it doesn't have canisters), has no torpedo tubes, a main gun that's been the average standard for decades, standard CIWS...

There is very very little about the T26 that is "gold plated". The mission bay and flight deck are not massive cost drivers. Outside of them there is nothing about this design that screams "I am huge and expensive!"

There is no reason that this ship should cost as much as it does outside incompetency in procurement.

[Tempest414]

But, RN stick to "19 escort saga" by inventing the T31 program, stealing 2B GBP from T26, making its build rate lower by 25-37.5% (if with 10 or 11 hulls, respectively) and inefficient, and hence costy. THIS IS (one of) the reasons for "incompetent procurement."

Who says this is a RN saga and HMG saga ?

[ArmChairCivvy]

The mission bay and flight deck are not massive cost drivers.

Indeed, downgrading them gives you the magical 'missing' 15 m right here and 'now' - now being when there are enough of the ASW in water to avert the escort numbers crisis, when the new constellation (MTF) is the primary driver for numbers considerations.

[NickC]

Why RN needs more destroyers and my argument the only way possible to fund them is to ruthlessly control costs, no expensive T26 hull and no gold plating.

USN carrier group during Desert Storm '90-'91 in a fairly benign environment, Iraq not a China or Russia.
1x carrier
2x Tico cruisers
2x Burke destroyers
2x Spruance destroyers (ASW)
Assuming one nuclear sub though not mentioned in the GAO report.
1x AOE/53,000t supply ship

Chinese image on web of 2017 plan for their carrier strike group, if accurate shows the following-
1x carrier
2x Type 055 cruisers
3x Type 052 destroyers
3x Type 054 frigates
1x Type 093 nuclear sub
1x supply ship

Chinese showing an escort of eight surface ships and as a very, very rough measure of their attack and defensive capabilities 516 VLS cells, the equivalent USN VLS cell numbers 628 with six surface escorts (the two Spruances now replaced by Burkes).

Assuming QNLZ surface escorts 2x T45 and 2x T26 total 144 VLS cells, with both carriers operational would expect max four T45 operational at any one time based on past history.

[tomuk]

] I think the
1- acoustic quieting
2- chinook capable flight deck (~30m long)
3- and mission bay
are exactly the "gold-plating" people think. (Adding 24 Mk.41 VLS is kind of average as a 1st Tier escort these days).

Its displacement is not all that huge (Remember RN states it's 6,900, average size escort today) radar is average (verging on below average by the time these boats hit the water), its sonars are standard fit for modern ASW, its missiles are decent but not exactly world beating, it lacks anything but local air defence, uses CODLOG, only has 24 Mk41 (that it also has to use for 8x AShM because it doesn't have canisters), has no torpedo tubes, a main gun that's been the average standard for decades, standard CIWS...

There is very very little about the T26 that is "gold plated". The mission bay and flight deck are not massive cost drivers. Outside of them there is nothing about this design that screams "I am huge and expensive!"

There is no reason that this ship should cost as much as it does outside incompetency in procurement.

While not disagreeing that the procurement is at best poor. Idont think you can critise the ship for having 'standard' spec like CODLOG and Mk45 gun. What would be better?

[RetroSicotte]

While not disagreeing that the procurement is at best poor. Idont think you can critise the ship for having 'standard' spec like CODLOG and Mk45 gun. What would be better?

The point is that many keep talking about it like a "gold plated" worldbeater thats taking the absolute apex of everything and splurging on bleeding edge kit, when in actuality it's mostly "standard".

If it were gold plating it'd be running IEP, a bespoke gun or AGS, a much larger radar etc etc.

I'm not criticising it for having standard kit. (The gun is not among my critiques) I'm critiquing the argument that Type 26 is an overly expensive super high end escort thats making every part some highly expensive optional extra, when it's really not.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I'm not criticising it for having standard kit. (The gun is not among my critiques) I'm critiquing the argument that Type 26 is an overly expensive super high end escort thats making every part some highly expensive optional extra, when it's really not.

This is the reason I think RN must have focussed on T26 build, never think about 19 escort to invent T31. I know you are not saying so in this aspect, but for me, it is.

[RetroSicotte]

his is the reason I think RN must have focussed on T26 build, never think about 19 escort to invent T31. I know you are not saying so in this aspect, but for me, it is.

Think Defence had a fantastic article that showed how the T45s almost halved in price toward boat six.

Wish I could find it. Letting the Clyde build them properly and then commit to a proper longer term plan would have been a huge benefit. Faster and cheaper.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Who says this is a RN saga and HMG saga ?

Me. They accept cutting T45 from 8 to 6. This is to keep the program cost within 6.6B GBP, 10% more (Treasury "kindly" added later) than the budget allocated for "8 T26". I do not understand suddenly in case of T23 replacement, RN went the other way.

# Actually, yes, very understandable how they "felt" they must keep 19. But, it was NOT well-balanced decision, I think. Now RN is paying for the decision by reduced efficiency = higher cost of T26 and hence facing severe "fight" in SDSR2020.

[donald_of_tokyo]

his is the reason I think RN must have focussed on T26 build, never think about 19 escort to invent T31. I know you are not saying so in this aspect, but for me, it is.

Think Defence had a fantastic article that showed how the T45s almost halved in price toward boat six.

Wish I could find it. Letting the Clyde build them properly and then commit to a proper longer term plan would have been a huge benefit. Faster and cheaper.

No objection. Only if the 2B GBP spent for T31 were to be used here...... Sad. Big big opportunity lost.

[NickC]

Its displacement is not all that huge (Remember RN states it's 6,900, average size escort today) radar is average (verging on below average by the time these boats hit the water), its sonars are standard fit for modern ASW, its missiles are decent but not exactly world beating, it lacks anything but local air defence, uses CODLOG, only has 24 Mk41 (that it also has to use for 8x AShM because it doesn't have canisters), has no torpedo tubes, a main gun that's been the average standard for decades, standard CIWS...

There is very very little about the T26 that is "gold plated". The mission bay and flight deck are not massive cost drivers. Outside of them there is nothing about this design that screams "I am huge and expensive!"

There is no reason that this ship should cost as much as it does outside incompetency in procurement.

The 6,900t T26 as quoted by BAE/RN must be light, PR puff to disguise the true displacement, which the Australians blew the lid when they disclosed in their specs of the Hunter as 8,000t FLD, 8,800t EOL, which is creeping up to the size of a Burke.

As said before reflects the higher displacement required for the T26 gold plating with the 30m flight deck for Chinook, large mission bay for Amphib and Dfid ops, large boat bay sized to take 12m RHIBs for the insertion of Royal Marines or other special forces, additional volume to accommodate ~50 personnel for special ops and their kit, the first and so far only ship to fit the large automated magazine for the BAE USA MK45 5" main gun etc.

[Tempest414]

Well all I can say is if the Chinook capable flight deck is gold plating then type 31 has a bit of bling

[SW1]

I think we maybe getting the flight deck issue round the wrong way. Requirements other than a flight deck drove the size of ship, endurance, range , stability requirements, habitability requirements top weight margins ect, which in turn offered up a certain size available for a flight. The requirements was obviously to handle a merlin however there is not that much of a difference between chinook and merlin requirements and if the design had space they why not.

Also I assume sonars are like Radar you can have the same sonar if two different navys but the capabilities can be very different depending on the threat libraries and processing software in the background looking at what comes back. I suspect in Australia and Canada’s case the software IP was offered in exchange for buying the ship.

Well all I can say is if the Chinook capable flight deck is gold plating then type 31 has a bit of bling

And the tide class tankers infact even the castle class opv could land a chinook.

[ArmChairCivvy]

showed how the T45s almost halved in price toward boat six.

Wish I could find it. Letting the Clyde build them properly and then commit to a proper longer term plan would have been a huge benefit. Faster and cheaper.

Well TD, though not turning up much these days, was well informed.
- however, you could not turn the T45 hull/ propulsion into a subhunter
- with T26, the opposite does not hold Looks like lessons have been learnt; that phrase that is in just about every MoD report

the Australians blew the lid when they disclosed in their specs of the Hunter as 8,000t FLD, 8,800t EOL, which is creeping up to the size of a Burke.

Err, average of 6200 for T26 (official) and for the Ticonderoga-class cruiser
9,600 long tons (9,800 t) full load comes out somewhere... wait for it! ... 8,000

As said before reflects

Sorry to say, but it reflects those things only marginally, and the intent and *long-term planning* for economies in building surface combatants much more so - is ANYONE on this forum going to believe that

[donald_of_tokyo]

Well all I can say is if the Chinook capable flight deck is gold plating then type 31 has a bit of bling

It is. I'm not surprised to hear, because of the big hull, RN were forced to reduce CAMM from 24 to 12, to save money. Also, do not forget the big hull needs more fuel. No matter CODAD is fuel efficient, smaller hull (with CODAD) is always more fuel efficient.

Never forget. Even after the big 33% increase in cost (from 1.5B to 2B GBP), the cost going to be spent for T31 is still just 60% of that of FTI, and still has ~50% larger hull.

The large hull with good sea keeping and range (far more exceeding the requirement) is exactly the "gold plating" of T31, for me.

[Tempest414]

Then it must say something about what the Navy wanted first and for most as they pick it over Leander and the A 200 offering

It also worth noting that when we there think we know better the RN has been in the game of naval warfare for nearly 500 years and have fort and won naval battle all over the world

With this being said I would still like to see what the A 200 would have looked like in type 31 form as they were given 5 million and not so much as a GCI to show for it

[Tempest414]

It is. I'm not surprised to hear, because of the big hull, RN were forced to reduce CAMM from 24 to 12, to save money.

So you are now saying that if we had gone Leander we would of had 24 CAMM because it was smaller any proof of this or is this just blue sky thinking

[Lord Jim]

It also worth noting that when we there think we know better the RN has been in the game of naval warfare for nearly 500 years and have fort and won naval battle all over the world

And during that time they have often got ship design and the capability priorities wrong. A clear example is with regards to AA capability leading up to and in the early stages of WWII. Even though they armoured ships against the airborne threat knowing they would be operating within the range of land based aircraft, all RN ship had woefully inadequate AA until much later in the war. Even the prime AA weapon, the 2pdr Pom Pom was found to be ineffective and on the case of the 8 barrelled versions massively over complicated and expensive to boot.

So yes the RN has a wealth of experience, but that doesn't mean that what they ask for is always what they should or actually need. The Global Combat Ship was a fine idea, but the budget was totally out of sync and has produced a platform that is really more than the RN needs and as a result of its increased costs has led to a reduction in the fleet.

The MoD as a whole, not just the RN needs to adjust its expectations ad aspirations to the resources it is likely to have. This is going to be the core of the ongoing SDSR. The RN is locked into the first three T-26 and the five T-31, but after that nothing is certain. There is very little likelihood the MoD is going to get any additional resources above the current level. The Equipment Programme has around £1Bn a year hole that has failed to be filled by "Efficiencies", and will have to be dealt with. Politically I doubt the Government will allow the Escort fleet to drop below nineteen, but with resources within the budget inevitably being spread thinner and thinner by the need to provide areas such as Cyber with greater resources, and "Security" coming to prominence once again, whether the funding for the remaining five T-26 is safe is far from certain.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Then it must say something about what the Navy wanted first and for most

Large hull, good seakeeping... a globally deployable navy?

The Global Combat Ship was a fine idea

still is, we just have to get the balance between presence and 'Combat' right. The 5+3 would not cut it

There is very little likelihood the MoD is going to get any additional resources above the current level.

but there is a fair deal [ pun intended ] of money in the EP for surface ships... as long as it is not eaten up by "other line items"

[Tempest414]

And during that time they have often got ship design and the capability priorities wrong. A clear example is with regards to AA capability leading up to and in the early stages of WWII. Even though they armoured ships against the airborne threat knowing they would be operating within the range of land based aircraft, all RN ship had woefully inadequate AA until much later in the war. Even the prime AA weapon, the 2pdr Pom Pom was found to be ineffective and on the case of the 8 barrelled versions massively over complicated and expensive to boot.

I think it is fair to say no navy got AA right at the start of WW11 and that even by the end of the war it was just a case of putting more and more guns on in the hope of hitting something

And you are right the RN hasn't always got it right and we slam them from our comfy seats but one thing I know from my service is that once something is gone that is it and it will a war to get it back

[ArmChairCivvy]

from our comfy seats

What ?