Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Scimitar54]

Portsmouth Shed would seem to be just the right size for building T4x, whether Destroyer or Cruiser. It would also be co-located with the T45 “Centre of Excellence” and Base Port. It would need the necessary workforce though. : :

[SKB]

Portsmouth's 200m long, 60m wide ship hall/'shed', under its previous Vosper Thornycroft (VT) ownership, produced all six bow sections for the six T45 destroyers. They were then barged up to Scotland for assembly.

In retrospect, and with the necessary team and skills, an entire T45 could and would (keep reading, see below!) have been completely built inside Portsmouth's 200m long ship hall - with room to spare.

When the first batch of three T45's were originally ordered in 2000, the first ship, HMS Daring (D32) was to have been wholly built and assembled in Glasgow by BAE Systems Govan and Scotstoun, then followed by the third ship in class, HMS Diamond (D34). But not the second ship....

When build contracts for the first three T45 ships were originally signed in 2000, VT was planned to build the second T45, HMS Dauntless (D33) - in Portsmouth!

However, this didn't happen as VT and BAE Systems "renegotiated" the contract in 2002, when a second batch of three T45's (HMS Dragon (D35), HMS Defender (D36) and HMS Duncan (D37)) were ordered by the RN in 2002, bringing the T45 orders up from three to six. Thanks to the contract renegotiations, instead of building one HMS Dauntless, VT got to build six T45 bow sections instead....

Sadly, with no further orders after the six bows were built, BAE Systems took over VT in 2008, then sold it to Babcock in 2010, but BAE kept VT's Portsmouth's ship hall for itself until the last QEC block builds were completed, then shut it and ship building in Portsmouth down.

In 2012, Babcock sold VT to a US-based investment group, The Jordan Company, which still owns the VT name.

[Ron5]

Any sources for your highly sensitive information?

Which part?

1. Bae/T26 sole source/open book contract is public record.

2. Request for funding to develop Scotstoun as a "frigate factory": well publicized by Bae. Computer generated videos of the facility are still on YouTube as far as I know. Scotstoun site was prepped for the work with space cleared for the new buildings and facilities. You can go and check both out yourself.

3. Amount of funding requested and the Treasury refusal to fund, published in major newspapers at the time: Times & Telegraph. No doubt leaked by the good folks in the Gideon lead Treasury in their unabated war on Bae. A narrative clearly swallowed by a few folks here.

[Ron5]

construct the Frigate Factory on the Clyde after all? The current mood music is positive.

Why would they? Most companies would push for productivity gains, but they have the T26s in the bag
... and Ron says that T4(x) cannot be tailored, to fit the bill??
If true (and he seems to be the unofficial BAES press office), then we won't see a frigate/ destroyer factory going up

I am still waiting to hear those arguments/ supporting evidence, beyond the one-liners he specialises in.

Can I ask what he means by T4X can’t be tailored to fit the bill ?

To be fair I can see the true reason for not building the frigate factory out of their own pocket being more to do with the build rate and soon to be axed garentied payments.

If the build the FF it would only to speed up build rate but if that happens and HMG don’t order any extra vessel then what ? There will be a gap between T4X and T26 replacement and unlike now they won’t get any RB2 style orders to fill that gap.

The Treasury specified the T26 build rate as basically the slowest rate the ships could be built while still maintaining enough build skills for the future (it does nothing for design skills). As such, it should be viewed as an extension of TOBA. Extra money to keep skills alive.

And as such, the slow, Treasury imposed, build rate is the primary reason the T26's are so expensive.

Now you and I would most probably go for the Bae proposal which was to build another ship for the same overall price if all 8 were ordered at the same time. But you and I are not Gideon. And in this instance, he might have been right but for the wrong reasons.

[Ron5]

But BAE would never want to be competitive, would they.

Well seeing that Bae won competitions in Canada and Australia for their Type 26 design, I'd say they know a shed load about being competitive.

[Ron5]

Surely the point of building a frigate factory would be to increase the production rate and overall costs, but since the government has agreed a lackadaisical production schedule and there's little to no chance of any country able to buy the T26 not building them themselves there doesn't seem much incentive for BAe to build the a frigate factory on the Clyde. However, if they do have a reason to do that then it's because they're concerned that a successful and on-budget Type 31 build by Babcock might threaten their monopoly on front line escorts.

No, the government did not "agree" to a lackadaisical (great word by the way) production schedule. The government imposed a lackadaisical schedule.

There was a video on YouTube at one time (might still be there) of Gideon down in Portsmouth proudly proclaiming his cunning plan to build one escort every two years. His effing silly drumbeat. Even a 5th grader can do the math that says with a 25 year ship life, that means the number of escorts will fall to 12-13. Run them to the point of falling apart (like what's happening to the Type 23s, gives an escort fleet of 15.

[Ron5]

Or build in two halves and join together outside!

Not a bad idea but that might serialize building too much. There has to be a considerable schedule overlap between successive hulls.

[Ron5]

Babcock Rosyth assembled them into one

There were indeed assembled at Babcock's Rosyth but by a team of workers (ACA) of which the most came from Bae.

[Ron5]

Attaching the bow or stern sections outdoors (there's a 300m dry dock with a goliath crane next door);

Don't think that crane is up to the job of lowering the middle bit into the dock. Well not gently anyway

[Ron5]

Portsmouth Shed would seem to be just the right size for building T4x, whether Destroyer or Cruiser. It would also be co-located with the T45 “Centre of Excellence” and Base Port. It would need the necessary workforce though.

Not any more, all the required facilities have been demolished/removed. All that's left is the shed.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I'd say they know a shed load about

... that nicely brings this shed discussion to an end.

His effing silly drumbeat. Even a 5th grader can do the math that says with a 25 year ship life, that means the number of escorts will fall to 12-13. Run them to the point of falling apart (like what's happening to the Type 23s, gives an escort fleet of 15.

Hence these next two classes announced/ in the works.

There has to be a considerable schedule overlap between successive hulls.

I' d say 37%. Take or leave 5 %-units.
- did I pluck the number out of the thin air
- no, the Gvmnt commissioned Rand to look into it in great detail with the carriers being about to be ordered. And my take-or-leave pencentage reflects the fact the ship class is not representative for all.

[SKB]

Don't think that crane is up to the job of lowering the middle bit into the dock. Well not gently anyway

Rosyth's Goliath crane has a lift capacity of 1,000 metric tonnes (980 long/Imperial tons; 1,100 short/US tons).

[Ron5]

But BAE would never want to be competitive, would they.

Well seeing that Bae won competitions in Canada and Australia for their Type 26 design, I'd say they know a shed load about being competitive.

Had a lovely chat at Canada House about the CSC programme and the T26. What with their recent record - the reason it was clinched is the involvement of FCO. (This counts for Australia, too).

Chatham house, however.

Sure, nothing to do with the design itself (eyes roll).

[Ron5]

Don't think that crane is up to the job of lowering the middle bit into the dock. Well not gently anyway

Rosyth's Goliath crane has a lift capacity of 1,000 metric tonnes (980 long/Imperial tons; 1,100 short/US tons).

So a lot less than the 140m long center section of the mythical T45X then.

Balancing a 140m bit of a ship from one crane might be a bit of a challenge too.

[Scimitar54]

Put it into the basin via a submersible barge and float it iinto the dock (a similar process was used for QEC, but in this case without the need for a coastal transit).

[Ron5]

Put it into the basin via a submersible barge and float it iinto the dock (a similar process was used for QEC, but in this case without the need for a coastal transit).

But isn't the crane required to lift the section off the barge?

[Scimitar54]

No it is not required. The Submersible Barge would need to be used in any case to lower the vessel into the water if it had been completely assembled within the “Shed”. Only difference if being ‘joined” in No.1 Dock would be Floating the two sections into it. (Not required if joining the two sections outside on the Hardstanding).

[SD67]

The obvious solution is simply order 2-3 more T26s in return for the Scotsdoun FF. How big is the gap in reality? HMS Daring will be 30 years old in 2040, so first of class T4x build must surely start around 2036. A 10 ship build starting now with a one third concurrency and a 2.5 year build cycle takes us just about out to there.

Offset the cost by
1) the cost savings accrued by the high productivity FF
2) Retire a couple of T23s early
3) Possibly, sell a couple of early build 26s at mates rates (New Zealand?)

[Scimitar54]

Flies in the Ointment:-
1) Although there are no doubt cost savings to be had due to efficiencies of scale in the build process, there is also
the operational cost of the 2 or 3 extra Frigates for the RN to find.
2) The T23 are already being pushed to a point that is beyond what is reasonable, so no savings here.
3) The RNZN, if considering the T26, will want to have the Hunter Class, for commonality with the RAN, so to get
them interested it would have to be far better than Mates Rates.

Finally, what is the point of building extra vessels if all we end up doing is either giving them away or selling them. T23 to Chile springs to mind as the start of the rot in recent times for reducing the number of Frigates in the RN. An abysmal decision then and an even worse one in the current/short and medium term.

At this point in time we do not know if the next AAW ship will be capable of being accommodated on a T26 Hull, or even if the next generation will require a considerably larger Hull ......... More Cruiser than Destroyer/Light Cruiser size.

I am all for increasing the size of the Fleet. We have too few Destroyers AND too few Frigates. but it takes Government commitment and consistency to:-
a) Increase the numbers of vessels being built.
b) Increase Naval Personnel in order to crew the additional vessels.

Whilst the PMs announcement last month was most welcome, it can only be however “nothing but a start” in providing the resources that are necessary for the RN to be able to do it’s job. Government needs to put defence consistently as its first priority in order to discharge it’s responsibility. There has been far too much equivocation over this for Nigh on 30 years and it will take long term political effort and consensus for the wrongs to be righted.

[SD67]

Annual running cost of a T23 is 12 million GBP, and T26 should be lower - smaller crew and better fuel economy.

Within the context of a 12 billion project really that's peanuts. Of course crew need to be found, it takes consistency of policy. But compared to shaving 100-200 million of the build cost of each and every ship it should be a no brainer. And it is a long term investment that would benefit future programs as well.

Not sure the Kiwis are locked into Hunter, they have a tendancy to not always follow the "West Island" - ie CAAM on their ANZAC class.

[shark bait]

we do not know if the next AAW ship will be capable of being accommodated on a T26 Hull

It will. The Navy has committed to a carrier group, and unless naval tactics change significantly over the next decade that group will still need escorts that looks similar to escorts being built now.

The direction of travel is distributing payloads through the environment, not concentrating more onto escorts, so the overall form factor is unlikely to see any radial change.

[Poiuytrewq]

Whilst the PMs announcement last month was most welcome....

What did he actually announce apart from confirming the things that have already been announced previously? The commitment to the T32 is pie in the sky at this stage.

On our current trajectory RN escort numbers are likely to fall slightly before increasing slightly in the mid 2030's. The 24 escort target looks as far away as ever.

The Integrated Review will hopefully show how HMG intends to grow the escort fleet in practical terms. Scrapping 12 MCMV's to pay for 5x T32's would be a highly disingenuous way to grow the size of the Royal Navy IMO.

Not sure the Kiwis are locked into Hunter, they have a tendancy to not always follow the "West Island" - ie CAAM on their ANZAC class.

Surely the Arrowhead 140 would be a perfect option for the Kiwi's?

[ArmChairCivvy]

we do not know if the next AAW ship will be capable of being accommodated on a T26 Hull

It will.

There's been a lively discussion about that on the StRN website
- have been trying to tease out (here) from the contrarians the basis for their views, but no luck so far

[SD67]

Any sources for your highly sensitive information?

Which part?

1. Bae/T26 sole source/open book contract is public record.

2. Request for funding to develop Scotstoun as a "frigate factory": well publicized by Bae. Computer generated videos of the facility are still on YouTube as far as I know. Scotstoun site was prepped for the work with space cleared for the new buildings and facilities. You can go and check both out yourself.

3. Amount of funding requested and the Treasury refusal to fund, published in major newspapers at the time: Times & Telegraph. No doubt leaked by the good folks in the Gideon lead Treasury in their unabated war on Bae. A narrative clearly swallowed by a few folks here.

I've never understood this. Even by the myopic standards of the Treasury at the time the funds involved are relatively trivial for a pretty fast payback. And it's CAPEX - a long term investment. My only guess is that Cameron and Osborne really wanted to cancel one of the carriers but the contract was too tightly stitched up so downgrading the t26 was a kind of revenge.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Annual running cost of a T23 is 12 million GBP, and T26 should be lower - smaller crew and better fuel economy.

This "running cost" includes only a fraction of the total cost to operate and maintain the ship. In general, operation/maintenance cost of a £1B ship is about £1B on her ~30 years life. In other words, at least £33M/year is needed. This is apparent if you look at the equipment budget, about 45% of which is procurement (generally including first year maintenance and training support), and 55% is "others".

I understand £12M/year is mainly on fuel and on crew, but do not include CMS hardware and software maintenance, weapon maintenance, machinery maintenance, and others.

Also, I'm not sure T26 is fuel efficient than T23. Even if the system is relatively fuel efficient, difference of size of ship will negate it, I guess? T26 is surely fuel efficient as a ship with 6800t FLD, but not comparable to a ship with 4900t FLD, I guess. (Correct me if I'm wrong).