Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Mark-san, SharkBait-san, Ron5-san

Mark-san's argument for 5in gun is understandable. But, my point is, T31 MUST be half the cost of T26. Without this limit, RN will lose escort number. This is my standpoint. If you do not agree, please tell me from where you are thinking you can get that additional resource. (increase Tax? Yeh, if you like).

"Cheap T31", reminds me that Venator is in its highest end. It could be Cutlass or even Avenger. In this two cases, a 3in gun design is already existing. The bow section "detailed design" is reusable completly. In Cutlass, mouting 24-cell CAMM on 12-cell SeaMICA place looks doable, thanks to LM's ExLS quad pack system. But, making 3in to 5 in will require big redesign, I'm afraid.

At the same time, RN is going to have large CVF, with "quantum leap" in land attack capability. T26 with 24-cell Mk.41 VLS will support it, in hi-end. Wildcats will carry 20 LMMs in near future, another "quantum leap" in precision (but low-end) land attack. Thus, "land attack" comes into mind as the "1st choice" to cut, to keep T31 cheap.

If 3in can do (in support with 8 canister SSM's land attack option and a Wildcat with full of LMMs), Cutlass and Avenger can reuse their design, which will make the design cost cheap, which will enable the other armament costs to increase (with fixed total cost).
Ron5 wrote:I assume the love shown for the 76mm gun is because of the assumption it would be cheaper.
I doubt that. A brand new 76mm plus brand new ammunition plus a brand new support contract vs a refurbished 5" with ammo already bought for the Type 26's and extension to an existing support contract.
As I clearly stated, I am proposing simple 3inch gun, with no "brand new ammunition". The support cost will surely related to the ammunition, so it shall also be cheap, if we omit it. Having no mid-calibre gun will make "cost-guard" tasks difficult, and "normal" 3in gun will be very usefull in fighting with cheap drons and fast boats. Much better than 4.5inch or 5inch. (3in OTO was "designed" for AAW, from its origin).

On the maintenance cost, I agree it will be addition to the logistics and training. But, I do NOT agree it will be expensive (if we stick to the ordinal shells, which exits everywhere in the globe). For exmaple, it will be cheaper than 20mm CIWS, and of course 30mm Gaol-Keeper.

However, all the idea here is to "increase other armaments". Please note it is not just "I DON'T LIKE 5inch". For example, carry CAPTAS2, introduce UAVs and/or UUV/USVs. For exmaple, everybody is talking about buying them, but none is refering to the cost to aquire it. I am here proposing to reduce the detailed design cost as well as procurement cost to intorduce these "much needed" systems. (There are no such thing as a fee lunch).

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:To the Treasury, hull per year = cost per year.
No, I do not agree. They are VERY clever guys. They surely do understand the situation.
For the T26, they're being told it will cost them more than they wish to pay so they want smaller ships because they think it will cost less per year. They're wrong.
Yes. That's why I am proposing to "mix" T31 build, when the T26's build cost starts to decrease.
The UK budget is driven by annual budgets. The Treasury is driving that as low as they can. To maintain the fiction that the UK is spending 2% of GDP on defense, they are moving into the defense budget, items that were paid for out of other departments budgets. The UK Parliamentary committee called that "smoke and mirrors".
Yes, this is also another example showing they are clever and following their own principle.
I do understand your point, you think the Type 31's will be cheaper because they will be delivered more quickly. Just like the Astutes could have been cheaper if they were delivered more quickly. Just like the CVF could have been cheaper if they had been delivered faster. But the Treasury does not agree with you as we have seen with the Astutes and CVF.
This is not my point. My point is, mix T26 and T31 to "fill" the cost. In SDSR15, 5 T31 is clearly noted. It is political decision and Treasury cannot overcome it (at least for a while). Thus, utilize it. This is my point. With the build cost prepared for 8 T26, Navy can build 8 T26 AND 5 T31. In other words, can use "another wallet" to fill the gap.
Example:
1. Type 26 delivered every 2 years. Shipyard cost = (say) 600 million. Annual cost = 300 million. Treasury says "too expensive"
2. Type 31 delivered every 1 year. Shipyard cost = (say) 300 million. Annual cost = 300 million. Treasury says "too expensive, build them slower"
3. Type 31 delivered every 18 months. Shipyard cost = 450 million. Annual cost = 300 million. Treasury says "why are they not cheaper?"
I do not agree to your assumption here. From where it comes from? And, even if it is true, Treasury is clever enough to understand this point, for sure. They are specialist "bean counters", they surely understand how BAES is coming up with that number, much better than MOD/RN, I think. I suppose, Treasury is waiting for MOD/RN to simply sacrifice other projects to fill the gap.

Many candidates comes in. Keeping PoW in reserve (which will release a lot of manpower cost), cutting F35B number, disbanding one of the Albions, selling River B2s to somewhere (and keep B.1 in place), omitting Mk.41 VLS from T26, disbanding another British Army brigade, and so on.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:From the T26 hull-3 after, there will be idle time for workers, because T26 build is much well arranged. Then, my proposal is use this "idle time" to start building T31s, concurrently. T31 will be block build, and yard will not be full with T26, so there will be enough space to locate T31 blocks. So concurrent build is doable
In the back & forth, the above is pretty much what I have been saying ever since the SDSR wording came out
... v soon we will have the National (War)Ship Building Strategy wording, to help to fill in the "voids" regardless of which design will actually get selected/ bult.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

If the type 31 is to be a desired 300 hundred million pounds per unit, is there confirmation that the type 26 is 600 hundred million per unit ?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:I'm not disputing which is the better gun, quite clearly bigger is better.

In a frigate we are trying to make cheaper, the first two things that have to go are the Mk41 VLS and Mk45 Gun, both can be lost without compromising the ship ability to escort.
The royal navy learned the lesson about how inflexible a solely missile armed ship is with the numerous leander conversions and the Type 22 I & II but with the III type 23 and subsequent escorts they have returned to a medium calibre gun.
Sharkbait I understand your logic however think on this you are operating a small number of 76mm guns maybe 6 in all vs 15 5in guns. But you then need to buy a seperate support chain for it that will be as expensive as buying the support chain for the 5in in terms of tools, spare parts, manuals, training etc. So you are buying that twice once for the 5in and once for the 76mm. However if you buy 1 gun system you need 1 logistics chain, one set of workshops support one set of training support your gun crews and engineers don't need revalidation if they move between classes (which will happen till the Type 45 is refitted). The inital outlay turns out to be more expensive and the continuing costs higher as you have to maintain 2 weapons systems.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

arfah wrote:A ship without a gun?
How do you fire a warning shot across a vessel's bow?
How do you Para-illum a target?
How do you create a smoke screen?
I understand that, which is why I have been advocating a smaller cheaper main gun. I recognize that it is not as capable, but given the fiscal pressures I believe that is a reasonable compromise.
marktigger wrote:Sharkbait I understand your logic however think on this you are operating a small number of 76mm guns maybe 6 in all vs 15 5in guns
Yes there will be a cost penalty for adopting a new system, what matters is does the lower cost of ownership for the smaller system offset that penalty?

Frankly that is something none of us can answer for sure, and the indications I have is these smaller guns are less than half the cost to own. Some of these smaller systems are incredibly well supported internationally giving a large user base to spread cost across, so it's not like the RN would be making the mistake of adopting small numbers of a bespoke system. Considering those points it seems likely the savings will offset the penalties.
@LandSharkUK

clinch
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by clinch »

Anyone seen that there's been a briefing paper published in the last few days? It's entitled 'The Royal Navy's new frigates and the national shipbuilding strategy'.

uk national shipbuilding strategy site:researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Nice find Clinch ,the article cites a naval figure stating that 8 billion pounds would be apprpriated for 8 frigates , perhaps that is the program not unit cost but still not cheap

clinch
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by clinch »

It gives the minimum annual TOBA spend on surface ships with BAe Systems as £230 million. Has that figure been made public before?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Nice find.

Doesn't appear to tell us much thats new but some points I picked out;
  • TOBA is £230 million a year
  • We paid a £100 million premium on the River Class to reach that level
  • Manufacturing of the Type 26 will not begin until summer 2017
  • MOD cost estimate for the T31 is £350 million
  • £1.8bn has been committed to design the T26
  • Programme costs £8bn
  • Suggests T26 unit cost to be £775 million
Putting those costs together, with an additional billion to design the T31 we reach the £11 billion figure previously claimed by the Royal Navy
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

What I took away from this:

- BAE is abusing the SNP's fanaticism to try and boost Type 26 costs because they know they'll get an order
- Type 31 is expected to be a useless piece of trash that ignores the lessons of everyone who's already tried this and realised it doesn't work
- The Government rushed the River class ordering because if it had a 100m premium then why not use 100m worth of upgrades to it rather than just throwing money into the air? A clear rush job.
- They are 100% commited to the "just call it a frigate so we can say we didn't reduce". Boom boom, checkbox military calling.


Absolute shambles, all around.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Yes Yes Yes Yes. Superb analysis @RetroSicotte
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

clinch wrote:uk national shipbuilding strategy site:researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk
Nothing new in it that this forum would not have captured ( a snapshot of the wider industry is a good read). However, you can click through to the T45/T26 proc inquiry, one of the docs starting with:
"Admiral Sir Philip Jones: Good morning, Chairman. I am Philip Jones, the new First Sea Lord. I took over three months ago from George Zambellas.

Tony Douglas: Good morning. My name is Tony Douglas. I am the chief executive of DE&S, and I took up office nine months ago. There was a three-month handover with Sir Bernard Gray, and over the past six months I have been in office, and privileged to be so.

Q136 Chair: Minister, you have been in office for just—

Harriett Baldwin: This is my third day in office, Chairman."

The Chair didn't do much better: ASW for ASW, 1:1, strictly timewise within the overall frigate build/ replacement prgrm:
"It is eight coming in to correspond to the eight Type 23s that are anti-submarine, and five later down the line. But what we are really focusing on today is getting the first of these ships out there. We are really talking about the first eight Type 23s to go and the first eight Type 26s—I must get it right myself—to come in. So you can see what we are up against—it is very hard to see how there could be any implications of the SDSR that would affect the timing of starting to replace these warships, other than if there were some financial prioritisation being given to something else, other than having warships generally in the SDSR, that might slow up the programme."

Mrs. Moon (in such a powerful job, here just a Committee member, was putting the iron fist into a silk glove earlier by describing herself as " a bear with a small brain" but she did prove it)
"Q179 Mrs Moon: I think that is quite rich coming from someone who said that the SDSR was over-ambitious in what it promised.

Admiral Sir Philip Jones: Did I say that?

Q180 Mrs Moon: Yes, you did! I made a note of it—“over-ambitious”. I particularly noted that, but I want to move on because colleagues have other questions." a v quick retreat (tactical, of course),
when going into something (SDSR) with an ambition of X was actually the statement.

Is the development of the general purpose frigate being driven by the need to find a stopgap to span the decommissioning of the Type 23s and the delivery of the Type 26?

Admiral Sir Philip Jones: No, it is absolutely not a stopgap. From my perspective, it is a long-term solution. I understand the SDSR deliberation that what the Navy needed in its Type 26 was enough ships to have resilience in our force generation cycle to have enough available to protect the deterrent and the carrier strike group. Eight is the right number to do that, using our force generation factor.

Then the deliberation was on what else the Navy needs, where else we want the Navy to operate and the other tasks we want the Navy to do. The deliberation quite rightly was that that looked more like tasking for a general purpose frigate of a slightly lower specification, built slightly faster and cheaper. Crucially from my perspective, it meant having a smaller ship’s company

Looks more like a gap filler (parallel build) than a stopgap?

Comments on comments... to follow
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

clinch wrote: the minimum annual TOBA spend on surface ships with BAe Systems as £230 million. Has that figure been made public before?
There are two TOBAs (with BAE and Babcock); is this for one or for the both of them?
shark bait wrote:MOD cost estimate for the T31 is £350 million
£1.8bn has been committed to design the T26
I did not pick up the first bit (did a sloppy job?);
the 1.8 has the long-lead items, down to propellers within it.
RetroSicotte wrote: - The Government rushed the River class ordering because if it had a 100m premium then why not use 100m worth of upgrades to it rather than just throwing money into the air? A clear rush job.
-yes, would v much seem so!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

clinch
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by clinch »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
There are two TOBAs (with BAE and Babcock); is this for one or for the both of them?
Just BAE:
In 2009 the Government signed a 15 year Terms of Business Agreement (TOBA) with BAE Systems and Babcock. The TOBA guaranteed BAE Systems a minimum level of surface ship build and support activity of £230 million a year.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

"The frigate’s primary purpose is yet to be clearly spelt out. Sir Mark
Stanhope, former First Sea Lord, pointed out that it is unlikely to be
expected to fulfil an anti-submarine warfare function as this requires
expensive silent platforms.57 This was confirmed by current First Sea
Lord Admiral Sir Philip Jones who said it will be deliberately designed to
be a much less high-end ship than the T26, which is being designed as a
high-end anti-submarine warfare frigate. The Admiral added that a “key
part of the strategy” for the GFPP is to make it appealing to potential
partners to buy."

interesting

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

"A key part of this design is to use as little equipment as possible and still be considered a "frigate" so that we can sell it to small scale nations despite there already being a ferociously competitive small ships market which we somehow haven't ever accounted for."

The irony is that that the Type 26 has export potential if only they'd pull their finger out and just do the damn thing. Two, possibly three major countries have been interested in it. The Canadians are even bending legal requirements on their procurement strategy simply to try and get the T26 into the competition.

If they'd just stuck to the plan and done the thing, and if the SNP had shut up, then it'd likely have had a contract by now.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Thanks for distilling the details guys - I cant seem to access it from my mobile - is the £1.8 billion/£350 million figure the unit cost only or does this include the design costs too?
And, can we get anything remotely credible or useful for £350 million?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

That figure is the unit production cost, which does not include design costs.

It would be very challenging to get anything credible for that, a small empty frigate hull will be costing almost £200 million, leaving only £150 million available for notoriously expensive complex systems.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

RetroSicotte wrote:- Type 31 is expected to be a useless piece of trash that ignores the lessons of everyone who's already tried this and realised it doesn't work
It is true? For me, T26 is Spruance-class destroyer, so T31 CAN BE O.H.Perry FFG, which was clearly successful. Yes it can be T21, which was not so good. This is the reason why many here are discussion about T31, to make it "21st century OHPerry class" and not "T21 again".

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

shark bait wrote:That figure is the unit production cost, which does not include design costs.

It would be very challenging to get anything credible for that, a small empty frigate hull will be costing almost £200 million, leaving only £150 million available for notoriously expensive complex systems.
Thanks for the info - do they state the anticipated design costs?
Will our ca. £150 million still be drastically insufficient given that we will be cross decking many of the systems from the T23s which will have been upgraded with artisan, sea ceptor, (possibly) harpoon replacement etc?
Might it also be likely that they will reuse the 4.5 inch guns? I know there has been much talk on here about the guns and possibly going to the 3 inch, but if it's not one common gun across the fleet then why not resuse the 4.5's, which would save on having to replace the T45s also...?

Appreciate thoughts from everyone, as ever

clinch
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by clinch »

dmereifield wrote:
shark bait wrote:That figure is the unit production cost, which does not include design costs.

It would be very challenging to get anything credible for that, a small empty frigate hull will be costing almost £200 million, leaving only £150 million available for notoriously expensive complex systems.
Thanks for the info - do they state the anticipated design costs?
Will our ca. £150 million still be drastically insufficient given that we will be cross decking many of the systems from the T23s which will have been upgraded with artisan, sea ceptor, (possibly) harpoon replacement etc?
Might it also be likely that they will reuse the 4.5 inch guns? I know there has been much talk on here about the guns and possibly going to the 3 inch, but if it's not one common gun across the fleet then why not resuse the 4.5's, which would save on having to replace the T45s also...?

Appreciate thoughts from everyone, as ever
This is what it says:
Industry’s view is that the MOD’s CADMID acquisition model will not be able to deliver the programme at either the estimated cost (under £350 million per unit) or timescale (to replace the Type 23’s that will leave service from 2023 onwards), according to analysis by Jane’s Defence Weekly. The consensus among industry, IHS Jane’s reports, is that the MOD “will have to pursue a streamlined, design-to-cost ship procurement that leverages off-the-shelf design and proven, low-risk technology as far as possible.”BAE System’s Managing Director told MPs that he does not think there is any current design to meet the MOD requirements for the frigate.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

dmereifield wrote:Will our ca. £150 million still be drastically insufficient given that we will be cross decking many of the systems from the T23s which will have been upgraded with artisan, sea ceptor, (possibly) harpoon replacement etc?
A good thought, swapping equipment was suppose to keep the cost of the T26 under control but it didn't, who knows if that's going to be true for the T31?
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

reuse of the 4.5 is unlikely as effectivly the Royal navy are the only major user and for new types of ammunition to be developed for them is prohibativly expensive so going for aa more widely used gun with similar performance is a better option

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

HMS Westminster got SeaCeptor. How is it going on? From my memory Argyll was quoted as a candidate. But, is it moving forward?
I'm afraid, SeaCeptor update "may" be quietly ignoring the 5 T23GPs. For example, Argyll is planned to be decommissioned on 2023. Even if she get SeaCeptor in 2017, it means she will go away 6 years later. Not cost effective, I'm afraid. Would be better to "life-extend" SeaWolf for another 7-8 years.

On the other hand, T23 further life extension will be needed. If the 1st T26 to be ordered on 2017 (was 2015), it will commission in 2024 (was 2022). To make the last T26 meet 2035 (St Albans's decommission), they will need to be built in 1.5 years basis.
- T26-1 2025
- T26-2 2026.5
- T26-3 2028
- T26-4 2029.5
- T26-5 2031
- T26-6 2032.5
- T26-7 2034
- T26-8 2035.5

And anyway, RN needs to life-extend the 5 T23 GPs for another ~3 years. In this case, if Argyll gets SeaCeptor on 2017 then she has 8 years (by 2025), if Lancaster on 2017 then 9 years (by 2026), Iron Duke on 2018 then 10 years (by 2028), and so on. (here I assumed 2 T23 to get SeaCeptor each year, without any evidence. Just "guesstimate" sorry).

So the next ship to get SeaCeptor is important, I guess. Namely, if it is Argyll (T23GP-1) or Northumberland (T23ASW-2).

Post Reply