Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[marktigger]

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).

Guess What according to the "Future Frigate...." Briefing document they aren't!

[clinch]

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).

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).

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).

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).

If Type 31 is going to be an adaptation of an existing design, maybe the light frigate will be in service before Type 26.

[donald_of_tokyo]

If Type 31 is going to be an adaptation of an existing design, maybe the light frigate will be in service before Type 26.

I think this will happen only if RN decide to go for "River OPV added with a hangar, a 20mm CIWS and a 3inch gun" = heavy OPV. If the design is more "fighty", designing it needs time and cost, and just delay the T26 program further away.

Actually, I do propose this option: build 3 "heavy OPV" (call it T31-Batch-1), and then 8 T26ASWs, and 2 T26GPs (call it T31-Batch-2). But, this idea was very unpopular in this thread

[marktigger]

there is allot of slating of the T21 some of it deserved but as a baseline for an Off the shelf light frigate its a starting point and maybe learning and applying some of the lessons learnt could lead to an off the shelf design like BaE's or BMT's designs work.

[RetroSicotte]

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".

OHP had good anti-air missiles for its time, ASMs, a decent gun, towed sonar, torpedos and a CIWS.

T31, the way it's going, is going to be an OPV with a gun and a handful of SAMs, and nothing else.

[marktigger]

a decent gun? the 76mm looked like it was almost an after thought. Would agree with the missiles & CIWS. Torpedo's could be incorporated in Both the T26 & T31.

Mention of the Spruance would have to say the Kidd had a much better missile fit initally. And decent guns.

[matt00773]

News on National Shipbuilding Strategy for frigates:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ategy.html

[clinch]

News on National Shipbuilding Strategy for frigates:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ategy.html

That's the briefing paper we've been discussing.

[shark bait]

Also of note, today Cammell Laird in liverpool laid down the keel of a 13,000 tonne, 125m long ship with an acoustically quiet hull, diesel electric hybrid propulsion, resilient mounted machinery, a specialist non-cavitating propeller, with a huge mission bay, and all being done for £200 million.

Sounds pretty good? Shame its a research ship and not a frigate, but that list of features sounds highly desirable, could it be a good starting point for a frigate

[marktigger]

shows the hull and propulsion can be done......though always wonder why they don't recycle hull forms!

[shark bait]

It does, and its no wimp of a hull either. Polar standards are tough!

[donald_of_tokyo]

there is allot of slating of the T21 some of it deserved but as a baseline for an Off the shelf light frigate its a starting point and maybe learning and applying some of the lessons learnt could lead to an off the shelf design like BaE's or BMT's designs work.

Agree.

OHP had good anti-air missiles for its time, ASMs, a decent gun, towed sonar, torpedos and a CIWS.
T31, the way it's going, is going to be an OPV with a gun and a handful of SAMs, and nothing else.

Yes. But, it lacked ASROC, which was though to be the "must" for ASW escorts (in USN) in the days, it is single shaft, and is NOT a "super-quiet hull" (what I say "so-so quiet" hull), and had only 3inch gun.

VS OHPerry:
- TASS, good. So if we make CAPTAS-4 FFBNW for T31, it is enough. Note TASS for many of the OHP-class was FFBNW. (See RAN, they did not carry any through out their life). So let's make CAPTAS-4 FFBNW. (CAPTAS-2 maybe also a candidate).
- SAM, good. That is the "selling point" of OHP, especially in export market. But, RN do not need it, clear. CAMM is good enough.
- short range. Fix it.

VS T21:
- no TASS, bad. Let's make if FFBNW. Then I find no problem here.
- obsolete AAW, bad. Yes, SeaCat on T21 is very much "a SeaWolf on T31". We are not doing it. CAMM is a brand new AAW missile, and ALL T31 candidates (other than my "heavy OPV") has CAMM. No problem.
- High center of gravity, bad. fix it.
- little growth margin, bad. Let's have FFBNW. CAPTAS-4, and even additional 24 CAMM. Mission bay (although it is small) is inherently a growth margin.
- short range. Fix it.

I think these kinds of discussion is worth doing. And if one does not like the resultant design even after careful analysis, he/she is "at the same time" proposing to reduce the number of escorts, OR, cutting somewhere else, OR, requesting to increase the defense budget. The last one does not look like going to happen. That is the reason T26 was cut to 8. So all T31 arguments shall stand on the assumption that defense budget will NOT increase, I guess.

[Ron5]

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.

Donald-san,

The Treasury is focused on reducing annual spend. Their actions have been entirely consistent with that approach.

Your suggestions are very reasonable if their focus was on reducing program cost. They are not.

Here's the figures for the Astutes. Please note the two year drumbeat and the increased cost of successive boats:

Astutes.jpg

[Ron5]

There seems to be some confusion about the NSS briefing that has just been published. Here and on other sites.

To be clear:

1. It was written by someone who is not part of the NSS team and has no inside information as to what they are doing and their conclusions.

2. All the information in the briefing is from open sources and could have been found by anyone on this forum given time and access to publications such as Jane's Navy International (not secret, just expensive). Not all the information is 100% correct.

3. The purpose of the document is to put everyone in Parliament on the same page regarding the background to the NSS (who has said what and when) so that a reasonable debate/discussion can occur when THAT (NSS) document is released i.e. it endeavors to establish what is fact vs myth.

4. It is NOT an executive summary of the report, it is NOT a reveal of the reports conclusions, it is NOT in any sense a signal or pointer to what that report will say and recommend.

5. Please return to your regular programming.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Out of Service Date
HMS Argyll 2023
HMS Lancaster 2024
HMS Iron Duke 2025
HMS Monmouth 2026
HMS Montrose 2027

Pasted this here as in the T45 and T26 *combined* Procurement Inquiry the Chair takes it as a given that the first T23s going out of service will be replaced by ASW T26s (and nothing else)
- industry may say that CADMID/ CADMM cannot deliver a new frigate to the above time frames, BUT they are not saying that they couldn't
- every one, though, seems to agree that a further life extension prgrm for T23s is a "no-goer"

[Ron5]

For the continuing saga of 76mm vs 5" gun:

Can those that assume the 76mm is cheaper, please provide some indication of relative cost?

The 5" gun cost is pretty well established. All sales are refurbished guns and there's been plenty over the past few years. The recent RN order is rather misleading because it includes a sophisticated automated magazine plus support contracts. Other countries (and USN) purchases are more interesting.

[Ron5]

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 ?

Sorry Seaspear, if you got that number from my posts, I was just using round numbers for illustrative purposes while debating with Donald-san. I should have said so.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Can those that assume the 76mm is cheaper, please provide some indication of relative cost?

I am certainly not one of those and marktigger has repeated the argument many times why the overall cost would be high, and even though doubling as a CIWS capability, there would be also an operational (not just effects) disadvantage in NFGS.

The cheap 76 mm that was meant for patrol boats as a survival weapon (no mag, all ammo in turret) is not even made anymore. With the mag, to make use of the high rate of fire, I believe we are somewhere around $10m (old figure, add inflation) just for the hardware. What do the 5 inch guns, used, go for on the same basis?

BTW, the 3D cut-out of HMS Forth on the OPV thread shows the miniscule size of the mag for their "pop guns". Evidencing the thinking that it will never be used.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Hype about HVP and other goodies for Mk 45

... even the French might put it on their FTI "light" frigate

[Aethulwulf]

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?

If £350 m is the average unit cost, the cost profile over 5 ships all constructed at the same yard would normally be something like:

•1st ship £400m
•2nd ship £360m
•3rd ship £340m
•4th ship £330m
•5th ship £320m

Of course, as we have seen with Astute and other programmes, there are any number of external factors that can change this profile.

[marktigger]

Donald given the Type 31 is replacing the Type 23 GP which isn't fitted with a TASS and a number of sources are saying the Type 31 "IS UNLIKELY to be built as an ASW platform can we stop the CAPITAS posts until something is actually announced confirming that it will be an ASW platform with a TASS. As if its unlikely to be built for ASW its unlikely to have dampened machinery, Hull form that is silent or non cavitation propellers.

as to the 76mm again all the evidence in poliicy and procurement is indicating a 127mm gun as standard. The economics of a 76mm purchase just don't add up for 5 platforms both as inital purchase and on going costs. The video on the Mk45 mod4 is interesting in its statement about the French are they abandoning the 100mm gun to? Though suspect they would rather go for the Oto Melara. If the Rivers were fitted with the 76mm I'd say it was a distinct possibility however they aren't at present and for a vessel that size it would be a wise move for them.

Yes the Type 21 didn't have the margins for expansion or top weight. The design should allow for this and operating across the globe (a fault in the T23 was being designed for one Geographic area)

[90inFIRST]

Hype about HVP and other goodies for Mk 45

... even the French might put it on their FTI "light" frigate

I note the model of the T26 has the 127/64 Oto Melara on it......................

[RetroSicotte]

Pretty certain it's not the OM, but just the Mk45 in a new casing.

[shark bait]

Type 23 GP is still an ASW frigate, and on two occasions this year we have send the 'GP' versions on NATO ASW exercises.

If the T31 has no capabilities we are yet again cutting our ASW assets at a time where subs are proliferating, and existing users are picking up activity.

Without ASW on the T31 the escort fleet is being cut by 5.

[RetroSicotte]

Bingo, even GP's have a hull sonar and Merlin facilities.

As a note, rumourmill says we may hear the system specs of the FTI this week from EuroNaval. Personal prediction:

- 4,000 tonnes
- 16x Aster-15
- 8x Exocet
- 76mm Gun
- Mistral CIWS
- MU90 Torpedoes
- NH90 capable hanger
- Hull Sonar
- Solid State AESA Radar (AESA being a first for the French Navy, that still uses PESA or Mechanical exclusively)