Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[NickC]

shark bait:
If you take your benchmark for a frigate as the GP T23, I wouldn't classify T31 as a frigate, maybe a OPV?

Surface Warfare
Anti-ship missiles , T23 8x Harpoon vs T31 zero
Main Gun T23 4.5" 46lb shell ~12 nm vs T31 Mk57 2.2" 6lb shell ~6 nm
Wildcat T23 LMM & Sea Venom vs T31 LMM & Sea Venom

AAW
Missiles T23 32x Sea Ceptors vs T31 12x Sea Ceptors
Guns T23 2x DS30B vs T31 2x Bofors 40mm

ASW
Hull sonar T23 S2150 vs T31 none
LWT T23 2x2 Sting Ray vs T31 none

Not sure details 100% correct, but think shows why i wouldn't classify T31 as a frigate due to its lack of firepower

Type 31 will never be as good as T-23 at ASW it was not designed to be however in the GP field T-31 could out strip T-23 being able to carry more CAMM up to 16 NSM even Mk-41 VLS it is all down to money the simple fact is T-31 is a Frigate with a corvette weapons fit. Type 23 is maxed out as far as weapons type 31 could have the same as the IH class i.e 32 MK-41's allowing for 128 CAMM or any mix of weapons

Don't disagree but i think the T31 as specified, contracted for and being built for the RN is not a frigate, its a long range OPV for gin and tonic parties / presence missions, whereas the old T23GP is a frigate. Not saying the that the T31 platform is not capable of being fitted out as a frigate with Mk41 VLS etc, etc. you only have to look at the parent Iver Huitfeldt class ships which are very capable frigates.

So totally unsuited for the use in the scenario shark bait envisaged above, fingers crossed the future T32 will be different and suitably kitted out.

[Caribbean]

Didn't the 1SL just state, in his speech, that the T31s will be replacing the T23 in the Gulf? I think the RN expects them to fulfil a frigates duties, even if they are less well armed that the T23 GP

[Lord Jim]

It maybe less well armed but is probably better for the role the T-23 in the Gulf is currently carrying out. IF things turns hot though, it would need back up quickly.

[JohnM]

Bear in mind we still don't know exactly what GFE will be fitted to the T31s (do we?)... with all the talk of retiring up to 4 T23s early, there will be plenty of equipment available for the T31s by the time they come online (32xSea Ceptor farms, 30mm guns, ECM, even the hull sonars (although they're a bit long in the tooth), etc.). Also, depending on the outcome of the I-SSM program, some heavy ASMs may find their way to the T31s as the T26s start coming into service and the ASW T23s get retired. All in all, I'd hold my judgement on the ultimate equipment fit of the T31s; by the early 30s they could end up very well equipped GP/Patrol frigates.

[ArmChairCivvy]

retiring up to 4 T23s early, there will be plenty of equipment available for the T31s by the time they come online (32xSea Ceptor farms, 30mm guns, ECM,

Heh-he, their hull sonars were being replaced anyway.
And this is a rerun pf the story how the T26s could be so 'affordable'
- remember how the LEP would prove the systems
- then the new ships would get them, the 'systems' ,in turn

[shark bait]

If you take your benchmark for a frigate as the GP T23, I wouldn't classify T31 as a frigate, maybe a OPV?

I did call it a patrol frigate, which I think is a suitable name. It's not much of a combatant, but it is more capable than the River class.

In the beginning it will have to get its capability from its embarked force, which is fine. It's not great, but it will do basic patrol tasks just fine.

[Ron5]

Bear in mind we still don't know exactly what GFE will be fitted to the T31s (do we?)... with all the talk of retiring up to 4 T23s early, there will be plenty of equipment available for the T31s by the time they come online (32xSea Ceptor farms, 30mm guns, ECM, even the hull sonars (although they're a bit long in the tooth), etc.). Also, depending on the outcome of the I-SSM program, some heavy ASMs may find their way to the T31s as the T26s start coming into service and the ASW T23s get retired. All in all, I'd hold my judgement on the ultimate equipment fit of the T31s; by the early 30s they could end up very well equipped GP/Patrol frigates.

We do and it doesn't comprise all that stuff.

[JohnM]

So, what does is comprise?

[Jensy]

Interesting Type 26/31 related paper from Canada's Parliamentary Budget Office (no clue what level of influence they have relative to our OBR):

In response to a request by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO), this report presents a costing analysis of building Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) with the continuation of the Type 26, as well as the cost for two alternate designs: the FREMM and the Type 31e.

Canadian Parliamentary Budget Office Link to full PDF:
https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/ ... se-options

EDIT: Just noticed the silhouette used for Type 31 is of Venator 110, not Arrowhead 140. Poor concept just won't be left to rest in peace.

[dmereifield]

Interesting Type 26/31 related paper from Canada's Parliamentary Budget Office (no clue what level of influence they have relative to our OBR):

In response to a request by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO), this report presents a costing analysis of building Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) with the continuation of the Type 26, as well as the cost for two alternate designs: the FREMM and the Type 31e.

Canadian Parliamentary Budget Office Link to full PDF:
https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/ ... se-options

Are the Canadians going to pull out of the T26 route?

[Caribbean]

I'm just intrigued as to what the spec is for those T31s - that's over £1b each - we're building the T26 for that sort of money

[Jake1992]

I'm just intrigued as to what the spec is for those T31s - that's over £1b each - we're building the T26 for that sort of money

I bet a lot of the cost comes from the Canadian build cost just look at the T26 costs roughly £38bn for 15 ships plus add ons compared to what £10bn for 8 ships plus add ons.
By the looks of things it costs roughly double to build in Canada than the UK.

[JohnM]

The Canadians numbers are for the entire life of the program, not just the build.

[Jake1992]

The Canadians numbers are for the entire life of the program, not just the build.

The UKs is t just for build either, most percurment costs now include I believe around a 5-10 support package.
Even though not full life cost it shows the cost of building in Canada is far higher than the UK.

[JohnM]

The Canadians numbers are for the entire life of the program, not just the build.

The UKs is t just for build either, most percurment costs now include I believe around a 5-10 support package.
Even though not full life cost it shows the cost of building in Canada is far higher than the UK.

Regardless, the Canadian costs, as presented, are the full expected life costs, not 5-10 year costs. They do have to set up the entire line
and logistical chain from the ground up...

[donald_of_tokyo]

The Canadians numbers are for the entire life of the program, not just the build.

The UKs is t just for build either, most percurment costs now include I believe around a 5-10 support package.
Even though not full life cost it shows the cost of building in Canada is far higher than the UK.

Regardless, the Canadian costs, as presented, are the full expected life costs, not 5-10 year costs. They do have to set up the entire line
and logistical chain from the ground up...

Reading the document, it looks like not the through-life cost. See page-1 of the document. Table 2-1 also help a lot.
https://pbo-dpb.s3.ca-central-1.amazona ... b58bd09018
The cost of 15 FREMM ships is estimated at $71.1 billion, inclusive of cancellation costs, running a new competitive design selection process, and a four-year delay
...
These cost estimates are inclusive of all activities associated with the development and acquisition phases of the procurement project and also account for provincial taxes and an initial 2-year supply of spare parts for each vessel. They do not include operating costs for the lifespan of the vessels.

Interesting. Also note,

1: "FREMM" estimate is based on US Constellation class
2: "T31e" estimate is based on Iver Huitfeldt class
3: In both cases, "anticipated differences in labour productivity between the shipyards" is estimated to require 55-58% higher cost than when built in US Bath or Huntington Ingalls, or Odense Maritime shipyard and Irving Shipbuilding.

[JohnM]

I stand corrected... thanks.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I stand corrected... thanks.

Not only you, but I myself was also thinking it was through-life. So, myself is also corrected. Thanks.

By the way, 1 Canada dollar is is 0.56 GBP. So,
- C$77.3B for 15 Canadian T26 is 42.5B GBP. 2.8B GBP per hull average.
- C$26.6 (27.5B subtracting 1.9B cancellation cost) for 15 T31e is 14.6B GBP. ~1B GBP per hull.

Now UK is to pay 2B GBP for the 5 T13s. What makes the "x2.5" higher price difference? Labour cost is noted as x1.5 in Canada, compared to US and Denmark. Not sure about Babcock, but it cannot explain the "x2.5".

[JohnM]

Bear in mind we still don't know exactly what GFE will be fitted to the T31s (do we?)... with all the talk of retiring up to 4 T23s early, there will be plenty of equipment available for the T31s by the time they come online (32xSea Ceptor farms, 30mm guns, ECM, even the hull sonars (although they're a bit long in the tooth), etc.). Also, depending on the outcome of the I-SSM program, some heavy ASMs may find their way to the T31s as the T26s start coming into service and the ASW T23s get retired. All in all, I'd hold my judgement on the ultimate equipment fit of the T31s; by the early 30s they could end up very well equipped GP/Patrol frigates.

We do and it doesn't comprise all that stuff.

So, what does the GFE for the T31 comprise? And of that, what’s being transferred over from the T23s?

[RichardIC]

So, what does the GFE for the T31 comprise? And of that, what’s being transferred over from the T23s?

Simple answer is that we don't know. But very little is likely to be transferred over from the T23s.

[NickC]

Recently reading that towards the end of the WWII in the Pacific the USN planned to go to larger calibres as the small caliber 10 and 40 mm CIWS short range low weight shells were not effective in deflecting the kamikaze aircraft/bomb and the ship still likely to be hit by bomb or debris as it follows its ballistic trajectory. USN needed heavier shells with longer range and sufficient kinetic energy to deflect aircraft bomb/missile and replace the quad Bofors 40mm with the new British/US twin 3"/70 with automatic mount with proximity fused 15lb shell, used the 3"/50 twin as a stand in until the development of the 3"/70 was completed, by end of war only fitted to ~8 ships. RN fitted the 3"/70 on HMS Tiger with its water cooled probertised monobloc barrel, post war went to missiles.

Ships today face similar attack threats with high mass and much faster missiles, eg the BrahMos Mach 2.8 ~2,000kg, think that T31 57mm or 40 mm guns will be of minimal effectiveness, left with its 12 Sea Ceptors, as normally fired in pairs and even assuming Pk of 80% chance of ship surviving co-ordinated attack by fighters each carrying two missiles very, very low if on its own.

Understand T31s NS110 can only control max of three FCR solutions at any one time.

A comment applied to the T31 on STRN applicable, Fisher’s description of the navy he took on as one ‘that could neither fight nor run away’

[NickC]

Recently reading that towards the end of the WWII in the Pacific the USN planned to go to larger calibres as the small caliber 10 and 40 mm CIWS short range low weight shells were not effective in deflecting the kamikaze aircraft/bomb and the ship still likely to be hit by bomb or debris as it follows its ballistic trajectory. USN needed heavier shells with longer range and sufficient kinetic energy to deflect aircraft bomb/missile and replace the quad Bofors 40mm with the new British/US twin 3"/70 with automatic mount with proximity fused 15lb shell, used the 3"/50 twin as a stand in until the development of the 3"/70 was completed, by end of war only fitted to ~8 ships. RN fitted the 3"/70 on HMS Tiger with its water cooled probertised monobloc barrel, post war went to missiles.

Ships today face similar attack threats with high mass and much faster missiles, eg the BrahMos Mach 2.8 ~2,000kg, think that T31 57mm or 40 mm guns will be of minimal effectiveness, left with its 12 Sea Ceptors, as normally fired in pairs and even assuming Pk of 80% chance of ship surviving co-ordinated attack by fighters each carrying two missiles very, very low if on its own.

Understand T31s NS110 can only control max of three FCR solutions at any one time.

A comment applied to the T31 on STRN applicable, Fisher’s description of the navy he took on as one ‘that could neither fight nor run away’

Edit, "the small caliber 10 and 40 mm CIWS short range" should read the small caliber 20 and 40 mm CIWS short range - 20 mm Oerlikon and 40 mm Bofors

[JohnM]

So, what does the GFE for the T31 comprise? And of that, what’s being transferred over from the T23s?

Simple answer is that we don't know. But very little is likely to be transferred over from the T23s.

That’s what I thought, but Ron5 said explicitly that we do know, so I’m curious... do we or do we not? I’ve not seen it announced anywhere...

[donald_of_tokyo]

From T23 to T31.

Different 3D radar, different gun (neither 114 mm nor 30 mm), no sonar (likely not), no AS torpedo, different ESM/ECM, different EO-FCS, different CMS, are what is already known.

CAMM? I understand it is new, not refurbs from T23.

So, maybe some com-link, and what? ....
We know there shall be many minor equipments which can be transferred, but no one knows. But, anyway no major equipments/armaments are to be transferred (other than very small possibility on CAMM, may be SeaSentor torpedo defense system?). This is known.

[calculus]

Interesting Type 26/31 related paper from Canada's Parliamentary Budget Office (no clue what level of influence they have relative to our OBR):

In response to a request by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO), this report presents a costing analysis of building Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) with the continuation of the Type 26, as well as the cost for two alternate designs: the FREMM and the Type 31e.

Canadian Parliamentary Budget Office Link to full PDF:
https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/ ... se-options

Are the Canadians going to pull out of the T26 route?

No, the DND has already responded to this report that they are NOT changing the design: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-nat ... atant.html.

Note they are also sticking to their estimate of CAN$56-60 Billion, which includes all construction activities as well as studies, design, analysis and engineering support, system tests, trials and evaluations, new and modified infrastructure (jetties and facilities), ammunition, training, and project support personnel costs. Ammunition costs alone for a class of 15 ships that are designed to support SM-2, ESSM, Tomahawk, Sea Ceptor, NSM, 127mm and 30mm guns, will account for about CAN$3Billion of the total. Also, the cost to operate the ships for the first 5 years is normally included, so as to give the DND a good basis of actual operating costs before running an in-service support competition. In addition, the actual cost to build the ships is estimated to be 50-60% of that total. So, comparing costs with other nations is tricky.

The problem with this report is it did not look at capability, just cost. That is stated quite clearly in the introduction to the report. The SOR for the CSC was heavily weighted in favour of ASW, which is kind of Canada's "thing", and neither the T31e nor the Constellation class can match T26 in that regard, just from the perspective of the hull and machinery design. The SOR was also heavily weighted towards future capability insertion. Constellation is big, but T26 is bigger, and the RCN wants a flexible design that can run for 30+ years. Just on those two requirements the T26 is the superior design. It also did not look at the cost of running and maintaining two separate classes of ship, which, for a small navy like the RCN, is a significant factor in favour of a single class. Finally, the PBO report included all taxes, which is ridiculous, as all taxes paid by DND to build the ship go back to government anyway. That represents somewhere around CAN$8Billion of the total cost estimate. It's really a ridiculous report, but unfortunately, it WILL muddy the waters for a time, and this does represent some risk to the program, despite the obvious merits of the T26. (I'm not even sure the T31e will even be equivalent to the current Halifax class, so adopting it would be a step backwards, in my opinion. So, realistically, from a capabilities perspective, this is a comparison between T26 and the Constellation class, and that narrows the price gap considerably.)

Here is a nice write-up describing some of the rationale behind the CSC: https://www.cgai.ca/the_canadian_surfac ... nd_context