Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

The reason why I'm saying that the UK should have TLAMs integrated in their Type 45 is just because if you integrate them in 6 allready expencive Type 45 then you won't have to do it in Type 26, so those ships will be cheaper. As should be, because frigates should be cheaper than destroyers, because you need more of them. 6 Type 45 will probably be just enough ( yes 8 would be better ), but 8 Type 26 will not be enough.

Other solution is use land-attack capable SSMs like RBS-15 Mk3 or NSMs. You have to have them anyway, so why not have additional capability. Not all ground targets will be 1000 km inland or need 500 kg warhead.

I totally agree to you, while I am not sure T45 really needs TLAM. It should rather carry additional 48 CAMM, I think.

Mark-san says, RN shall replace 13 T23 with 13 T26, and if not, it is a shrink. I do not agree.

T26 has many additional aspects compared to T23.
- 24-cell Mk.41 VLS presumably for TLAM
- large mission bay for flexibility
- 70-man EMF capability with Chinook capable flight deck.
These are all additional requirements which was not existing on T23. In other words, T26 is much "more" than just a T23 replacement. This made it large, expensive, and naturally un-affordable. It is RN's choice (or "fault"). They bet for more resource. They naturally lost and get similar resources they are spending for 13 T23. I think with current T26 design, hoping for 10 (or 11 at most) T26 to replace all 13 T23 is more proper.

# I think T26 shall better be designed 1000t FL less, and make it "mission bay + 50 EMF + 8 NSM or like + CAPTAS-4" for 8 of them, and "32-cell Mk.41 VLS with TLAM" for 5 of them, in addition to their basic 1x 127mm, 48x CAMM armaments = select between VLS and mission bay + EMF.

For this reason, I am rather positive to look for 5 T31 light frigates to compensate 8 T26(all-mighty). Even if it Cutlass (say 3300-3500t FL hull with 1x 127mm, 24x CAMM, hull-mounted-sonar, 1x Wildcat, 8 NSM (or like), (and CAPTAS-2 FFBNW)) will be fine for me. I think it is proper escort. If you combine T31 with T26, T31 can "shepherd" the RFAs, leaving T26 to position herself on "ASW-best position".

I agree it should have better be my (or our) fantasy 2 smaller T26 (1 with CAPTAS4 and 1 without), but RN just did not select that way.

And now, it is too late to "shorten" T26. Just go with 8 T26 and 5 light frigate option. Anyway, it is not that bad I think.

[abc123]

The reason why I'm saying that the UK should have TLAMs integrated in their Type 45 is just because if you integrate them in 6 allready expencive Type 45 then you won't have to do it in Type 26, so those ships will be cheaper. As should be, because frigates should be cheaper than destroyers, because you need more of them. 6 Type 45 will probably be just enough ( yes 8 would be better ), but 8 Type 26 will not be enough.

Other solution is use land-attack capable SSMs like RBS-15 Mk3 or NSMs. You have to have them anyway, so why not have additional capability. Not all ground targets will be 1000 km inland or need 500 kg warhead.

I totally agree to you, while I am not sure T45 really needs TLAM. It should rather carry additional 48 CAMM, I think.

Mark-san says, RN shall replace 13 T23 with 13 T26, and if not, it is a shrink. I do not agree.

T26 has many additional aspects compared to T23.
- 24-cell Mk.41 VLS presumably for TLAM
- large mission bay for flexibility
- 70-man EMF capability with Chinook capable flight deck.
These are all additional requirements which was not existing on T23. In other words, T26 is much "more" than just a T23 replacement. This made it large, expensive, and naturally un-affordable. It is RN's choice (or "fault"). They bet for more resource. They naturally lost and get similar resources they are spending for 13 T23. I think with current T26 design, hoping for 10 (or 11 at most) T26 to replace all 13 T23 is more proper.

# I think T26 shall better be designed 1000t FL less, and make it "mission bay + 50 EMF + 8 NSM or like + CAPTAS-4" for 8 of them, and "32-cell Mk.41 VLS with TLAM" for 5 of them, in addition to their basic 1x 127mm, 48x CAMM armaments = select between VLS and mission bay + EMF.

For this reason, I am rather positive to look for 5 T31 light frigates to compensate 8 T26(all-mighty). Even if it Cutlass (say 3300-3500t FL hull with 1x 127mm, 24x CAMM, hull-mounted-sonar, 1x Wildcat, 8 NSM (or like), (and CAPTAS-2 FFBNW)) will be fine for me. I think it is proper escort. If you combine T31 with T26, T31 can "shepherd" the RFAs, leaving T26 to position herself on "ASW-best position".

I agree it should have better be my (or our) fantasy 2 smaller T26 (1 with CAPTAS4 and 1 without), but RN just did not select that way.

And now, it is too late to "shorten" T26. Just go with 8 T26 and 5 light frigate option. Anyway, it is not that bad I think.

Yes, it's too late now.

About Type 31, trouble is, you can't have 5 of them ( or maybe more ) if you don't go with Cutlass. At least with the amount of money that the HMG is willing to spend. So, Cutlass:

1 x 127 mm- cca. 20 mil. USD
10 x NSM- cca. 40 mil. USD
30 x CAMM- cca. 30 mil. USD ( again, does anyone know's the price of CAMM)
CAMM silos- cca. 30 mil. USD ( who knows? the number is out my ass )
1 x Phalanx- cca. 15 mil. USD
2 x 30 mm RWS- cca. 5 mil. USD

Weapons in total: 140 mil. USD If weapons is 1/3 of cost of a ship- then about 450 mil. USD for a Cutlass. Maybe less, because of lower shipbuilding standards ( more noise, less survivability )... So, 400-450 mil.

For 5 of them, about 2,2 billions for procurement and about 500 mil. for development ( maybe less, nothing revolutionary there ). So, what's smarter, to use 2,5-3 billions USD for 5 Cutlass or 3 Type 26 frigates?

[donald_of_tokyo]

About Type 31, trouble is, you can't have 5 of them ( or maybe more ) if you don't go with Cutlass. At least with the amount of money that the HMG is willing to spend. So, Cutlass:

1 x 127 mm- cca. 20 mil. USD
10 x NSM- cca. 40 mil. USD
30 x CAMM- cca. 30 mil. USD ( again, does anyone know's the price of CAMM)
CAMM silos- cca. 30 mil. USD ( who knows? the number is out my ass )
1 x Phalanx- cca. 15 mil. USD
2 x 30 mm RWS- cca. 5 mil. USD

Weapons in total: 140 mil. USD If weapons is 1/3 of cost of a ship- then about 450 mil. USD for a Cutlass. Maybe less, because of lower shipbuilding standards ( more noise, less survivability )... So, 400-450 mil.

For 5 of them, about 2,2 billions for procurement and about 500 mil. for development ( maybe less, nothing revolutionary there ). So, what's smarter, to use 2,5-3 billions USD for 5 Cutlass or 3 Type 26 frigates?

Interesting. So, how about

1 x 127 mm- cca. 20 mil. USD
8 x NSM- cca. 32 mil. USD
24 x CAMM- cca. 24 mil. USD ( again, does anyone know's the price of CAMM)
CAMM silos- cca. 24 mil. USD ( who knows? the number is out my ass )
0 x Phalanx- cca. 0 mil. USD (make it FFBNW)
2 x 30 mm RWS- cca. 5 mil. USD

then you have 105 mil USD. Multiply by 3, you get 315M USD = 262M GBP. Although I do not have any confidence in this cost estimate, I do think the armament can (or shall) be reduced to this size, and even so, it is still "proper", I believe. For example, 24 CAMM and 24 SeaWolf, former is quite capable than latter. 127mm gun is more compact, but more capable than 114mm gun. 8 NSM is smaller but more capable (can do land attack) than harpoon.

Even compared with T23GP-mod, 32 CAMM --> 24 CAMM reduction, but 114 mm gun --> 127 mm gun enhancement may balance.

And anyway, since T26-ASW is "much more" than T23-ASW, T31 "slightly less than" T23-GP is acceptable, I think.

[abc123]

About Type 31, trouble is, you can't have 5 of them ( or maybe more ) if you don't go with Cutlass. At least with the amount of money that the HMG is willing to spend. So, Cutlass:

1 x 127 mm- cca. 20 mil. USD
10 x NSM- cca. 40 mil. USD
30 x CAMM- cca. 30 mil. USD ( again, does anyone know's the price of CAMM)
CAMM silos- cca. 30 mil. USD ( who knows? the number is out my ass )
1 x Phalanx- cca. 15 mil. USD
2 x 30 mm RWS- cca. 5 mil. USD

Weapons in total: 140 mil. USD If weapons is 1/3 of cost of a ship- then about 450 mil. USD for a Cutlass. Maybe less, because of lower shipbuilding standards ( more noise, less survivability )... So, 400-450 mil.

For 5 of them, about 2,2 billions for procurement and about 500 mil. for development ( maybe less, nothing revolutionary there ). So, what's smarter, to use 2,5-3 billions USD for 5 Cutlass or 3 Type 26 frigates?

Interesting. So, how about

1 x 127 mm- cca. 20 mil. USD
8 x NSM- cca. 32 mil. USD
24 x CAMM- cca. 24 mil. USD ( again, does anyone know's the price of CAMM)
CAMM silos- cca. 24 mil. USD ( who knows? the number is out my ass )
0 x Phalanx- cca. 0 mil. USD (make it FFBNW)
2 x 30 mm RWS- cca. 5 mil. USD

then you have 105 mil USD. Multiply by 3, you get 315M USD = 262M GBP. Although I do not have any confidence in this cost estimate, I do think the armament can (or shall) be reduced to this size, and even so, it is still "proper", I believe. For example, 24 CAMM and 24 SeaWolf, former is quite capable than latter. 127mm gun is more compact, but more capable than 114mm gun. 8 NSM is smaller but more capable (can do land attack) than harpoon.

Even compared with T23GP-mod, 32 CAMM --> 24 CAMM reduction, but 114 mm gun --> 127 mm gun enhancement may balance.

And anyway, since T26-ASW is "much more" than T23-ASW, T31 "slightly less than" T23-GP is acceptable, I think.

Well, this 1/3 method is from Type 23 frigates, weapons there is 32% of costs. Official numbers, posted by someone here.

About the prices, it's the best possible that I could find/guess.

[marktigger]

problem with financing type 31 from the savings from type 26 is what is the incentive for BaE to save money if its going into someone else's design?

[dmereifield]

There seems to be a variety of opinion here. I wonder if we could have a vote on the options.

Assuming a budget of £2.4 billion (latest guesstimates in the public domain suggest ca. £800 million per T26), the options are, 8 T26 plus:

1) 3 x T26

2) 5 x high spec T31 (assumed cost ca. £450-500 million, inclusive of development costs)
Defined here as per Engaging Strategy's description of:

-Spartan hull
-127mm gun
-32 camm
same surface and air warfare sensor suite as -Type 26
-Stern Garage/Small Mission bay in the hull (FFBNW TAS)
-16 x Small strike VLS (sorry ES, I took the liberty if doubling the number for the sake of this comparative exercise)
-1 x Phalanx
-Merlin sized hangar
-assortment of miniguns, 30mm guns and GPMGs

3) 8 x low spec T31 (assumed cost of ca. £300 million)
Defined here as per the description provided by Donald and abc123:

-Cutlass hull
-127 mm gun
-24 camm
-same surface and air warfare sensor suite as upgraded Type 23 (presumably recycled from T23) (sorry DoT/abc123 this wasn't defined by you so I included this)
-8 x NSM
-Phalanx FFBNW
-Wildcat (presumed) sized hangar
-assortment of miniguns, 30mm guns and GPMGs

We know option 1 isn't really an option, and that the RN will instead get something possibly resembling options 2 or 3, but ignoring that, from options 1-3, which would be best for the RN to supplement the 6 T45s and 8 T26?

[shark bait]

Finally had a chance to have a proper look at this new concept, which broadly looks the same as BMT's offering.

Both appear reasonable reference designs, which mean little at this stage because we have no real idea how the MOD will apply the winning reference design. All we can say with confidence is that CAMM and Artisan will be fitted, the rest is still up for debate, so it's very difficult to deduce the capabilities of either option.

BMT and Stellar both present similar reference designs, that appear to have plenty of configurable spaces, which is highly desirable, and may or may not be used by the MOD. What we need is the MOD to commit to filling those spaces with high end systems to elevate the T31 beyond the role of simple dumb patrol frigates.

Hopefully we will soon get the MOD's shipbuilding strategy, and we will know for certain whether this is a genuine endeavor, or just a distraction that keeps kicking any decisions further down the line, deeper and deeper in more studies and reports.

[abc123]

There seems to be a variety of opinion here. I wonder if we could have a vote on the options.

Assuming a budget of £2.4 billion (latest guesstimates in the public domain suggest ca. £800 million per T26), the options are, 8 T26 plus:

1) 3 x T26

2) 5 x high spec T31 (assumed cost ca. £450-500 million, inclusive of development costs)
Defined here as per Engaging Strategy's description of:

-Spartan hull
-127mm gun
-32 camm
same surface and air warfare sensor suite as -Type 26
-Stern Garage/Small Mission bay in the hull (FFBNW TAS)
-16 x Small strike VLS (sorry ES, I took the liberty if doubling the number for the sake of this comparative exercise)
-1 x Phalanx
-Merlin sized hangar
-assortment of miniguns, 30mm guns and GPMGs

3) 8 x low spec T31 (assumed cost of ca. £300 million)
Defined here as per the description provided by Donald and abc123:

-Cutlass hull
-127 mm gun
-24 camm
-same surface and air warfare sensor suite as upgraded Type 23 (presumably recycled from T23) (sorry DoT/abc123 this wasn't defined by you so I included this)
-8 x NSM
-Phalanx FFBNW
-Wildcat (presumed) sized hangar
-assortment of miniguns, 30mm guns and GPMGs

We know option 1 isn't really an option, and that the RN will instead get something possibly resembling options 2 or 3, but ignoring that, from options 1-3, which would be best for the RN to supplement the 6 T45s and 8 T26?

Yeah, I forgot to mention that possibility ( recycling from Type 23 ).

I would vote for option number 3: 8 x low-spec T31.

But I'm allmost sure that the HMG will not see it that way and we will look at up to 13 months long deployments in the future too....

[donald_of_tokyo]

Assuming a budget of £2.4 billion (latest guesstimates in the public domain suggest ca. £800 million per T26), the options are, 8 T26 plus:
1) 3 x T26
2) 5 x high spec T31 (assumed cost ca. £450-500 million, inclusive of development costs)
3) 8 x low spec T31 (assumed cost of ca. £300 million)

If this is the case, of course (2) will be better. But, I think (2) and (3) is estimated to be too cheap.

My modified vote-candidates are
(1a) 3x T26 with £2.2 billion (£730 million per T26, estimated from dividing £8 billion by 3(design)+8(units))
(2a) 2x Spartan-like (It has similar armament to T26, even with CODLAG. It can only be at most 30% cheap than T26. So unit cost might be 730/1.3 = £560 million. Design cost (2 unit costs) = £1.1 billion, leaves only 1.9 units to be built, if the cost-cap of £2.2 billion is the same.)
(3a) 5x Cutlass-like (As modification, design cost can be 1-1.5 unit cost. So dividing £2.2 billion with ((1 or 1.5)+ 5) gives £340-360 million per unit)

In this case, I prefer (3a) or (1a).

# If you need 5 units in case (2a), you need additional £1.7 billion. This amounts to 12-17 F35B, or ~10 P-8A, or ~12 V-22.

Finally had a chance to have a proper look at this new concept, which broadly looks the same as BMT's offering.

I think Spartan is larger than Venator-110 GPFF.

- Spartan = 127mm G, 32 CAMM, 8 SSM, 1 Merlin-capable + 1 UAV/USV hangar, large stern-mission hangar, 16 Mk41VLS.
- Venator = 127mm G, 24 (up to 48) CAMM, 8 SSM, 1 Merlin-capable + 1 UAV/USV hangar, medium stern-mission hangar.

And with Cutlass, I think we can have
- Cutlass = 127mm G, 24 CAMM, 8 SSM, 1 Merlin-capable + 1 UAV/USV hangar

For comparison T26 is (for me)
- T26ASW = 127mm G, 48 CAMM, 1 Merlin-capable hangar, 1 Merlin/UAV/USVs capable large mission bay/hangar, 24 Mk41VLS, (and with super quiet hull)

Yeh, we have "spectrum" of candidates (actually, there will be Avenger). Looking forward for the HMG's decision.

By the way, Stellar Systems is what? It looks like it is a small private venture. They may be quite super guys, but anyway looks like experience is not much.

[Spinflight]

Type 26 is well over a billion and now bigger than a Type 45. Which puts the calculations above off a bit.

Also the Avenger was mentioned in the defence select committee, at £200m. The panel didn't seem enthused about it and responded to a question that they were looking at increased capacity somewhere else rather than limiting the decision to the Clyde. Which is rather at odds with previous Govt announcements that T31 would be built after the T26 and on the Clyde, though as that would presumably be late 2030s also doesn't make sense.

Interestingly question is whether the Avenger design, being just a stretched River, is a proper frigate or not. One the one hand I doubt Baes would put it forward as a design unless it was, even a low end one.

Which also brings into question the internal arrangements of the River B2s. The B1s would have been built to OPV standards, or a minimum of Lloyd's register NS3. Clearly the RN see's a wider role for them as even the B1s are doing a bit of globe trotting, which NS3 specifically isn't. B1s were provided on a £20m pa lease which included all support and build costs over a guaranteed 10 years. The five B2s support cost can be calculated from the latter contract for 2, which included the support for the fleet at £55m. Which including profit probably gives a unit cost for B1 of circa £50m.

There were various upgrades listed over the B1s such as enhanced firefighting, kevlar protected mags and whatnot. Were they then built to frigate standards ( NS2 hence justifying their cost) or some grey area in between?

I rather suspect that they were, or as close as could be managed without a massive redesign, saying which it is a significant redesign. £116m does sound too cheap of course but bear in mind that is without a frigatty outfitting, which accounts for much of a frigate's cost. No gucci radar, Sonar, Datalinks, only a 30mm etc. Also the Toba terms were specifically to keep the workforce on the Clyde skilled up to build complex warships. It would not be in Baes' interests to have their workforce building non or less warshippy items in preparation for Type 26.

Which leaves quite a conundrum. If we can assume that the Avenger design isn't radically different, just a stretch and more complete outfitting, then it is greatly paid for. And remarkably cheap at £200m.

The other contenders of course would require detailed design work, which isn't entirely at their own expense. Those MoD chappies would no doubt have to write a report on every nut and bolt whereas the extended River design is likely already greatly signed off.

There's also the matter of exportability. Key to the Type 31e.

With the exception of used and abused hulls the only frigate design we've produced which was an export success was the Leanders, a 2300T 27knt light frigate. Tempting major navies to downsize a bit for commonality and increased numbers and minor navies to up size from OPVs a bit. If you assume that the hull costs themselves haven't changed dramatically since the late 50 and 60s then the costs are remarkably similar.

Hence it rather looks like a no brainer to me, however much the other designs look more attractive and capable. Once you include the extensive design costs it's likely to be a choice between however many Avengers you want ( MHC too remember) or a slack handful of Venators / Spartans you can afford.

Exports too are a more likely proposition than only a few days ago. Trump nagging the europeons into spending their 2% sees quite a few Nato members with clapped out Mekos or Soviet era tubs likely in the hunt.

[RichardIC]

There's only one thing you need to know about the Avenger - it's feck ugly.

And no-one's going to be reaching down the back of their sofa because of Trump's ranting.

[2HeadsBetter]

It's just dawned on me what Spartan reminds me of: the early Type 26 design. The one that was going to cost £350 million tops. So after a few years of kicking the can around (i.e. "maturing the design"), we'll be looking at a pocket-cruiser again.

Quite agree that Avenger looks pig ugly, though not as bad as that new Italian tub.

[Spinflight]

And no-ones going to be reaching down the back of their sofa because of Trump's ranting.

Merkel has already caved.

Quite agree that Avenger looks pig ugly, though not as bad as that new Italian tub.

Yeah, they're pigs all right. Look good on specs and whatnot but hideous from an aesthetic point of view.

[dmereifield]

Type 26 is well over a billion and now bigger than a Type 45. Which puts the calculations above off a bit.

Also the Avenger was mentioned in the defence select committee, at £200m. The panel didn't seem enthused about it and responded to a question that they were looking at increased capacity somewhere else rather than limiting the decision to the Clyde. Which is rather at odds with previous Govt announcements that T31 would be built after the T26 and on the Clyde, though as that would presumably be late 2030s also doesn't make sense.

Interestingly question is whether the Avenger design, being just a stretched River, is a proper frigate or not. One the one hand I doubt Baes would put it forward as a design unless it was, even a low end one.

Which also brings into question the internal arrangements of the River B2s. The B1s would have been built to OPV standards, or a minimum of Lloyd's register NS3. Clearly the RN see's a wider role for them as even the B1s are doing a bit of globe trotting, which NS3 specifically isn't. B1s were provided on a £20m pa lease which included all support and build costs over a guaranteed 10 years. The five B2s support cost can be calculated from the latter contract for 2, which included the support for the fleet at £55m. Which including profit probably gives a unit cost for B1 of circa £50m.

There were various upgrades listed over the B1s such as enhanced firefighting, kevlar protected mags and whatnot. Were they then built to frigate standards ( NS2 hence justifying their cost) or some grey area in between?

I rather suspect that they were, or as close as could be managed without a massive redesign, saying which it is a significant redesign. £116m does sound too cheap of course but bear in mind that is without a frigatty outfitting, which accounts for much of a frigate's cost. No gucci radar, Sonar, Datalinks, only a 30mm etc. Also the Toba terms were specifically to keep the workforce on the Clyde skilled up to build complex warships. It would not be in Baes' interests to have their workforce building non or less warshippy items in preparation for Type 26.

Which leaves quite a conundrum. If we can assume that the Avenger design isn't radically different, just a stretch and more complete outfitting, then it is greatly paid for. And remarkably cheap at £200m.

The other contenders of course would require detailed design work, which isn't entirely at their own expense. Those MoD chappies would no doubt have to write a report on every nut and bolt whereas the extended River design is likely already greatly signed off.

There's also the matter of exportability. Key to the Type 31e.

With the exception of used and abused hulls the only frigate design we've produced which was an export success was the Leanders, a 2300T 27knt light frigate. Tempting major navies to downsize a bit for commonality and increased numbers and minor navies to up size from OPVs a bit. If you assume that the hull costs themselves haven't changed dramatically since the late 50 and 60s then the costs are remarkably similar.

Hence it rather looks like a no brainer to me, however much the other designs look more attractive and capable. Once you include the extensive design costs it's likely to be a choice between however many Avengers you want ( MHC too remember) or a slack handful of Venators / Spartans you can afford.

Exports too are a more likely proposition than only a few days ago. Trump nagging the europeons into spending their 2% sees quite a few Nato members with clapped out Mekos or Soviet era tubs likely in the hunt.

Wow, wasn't expecting anyone on here to favour the Avenger (assuming it does end up being so inexpensive).....it's somewhat nice to hear at least some support for it, since its quite possibly that's what we'll get.

[marktigger]

wonder when the trimaran and other "innovative" designs will come out

[ArmChairCivvy]

Sowing maximum confusion - I love this discussion! Pls do carry on

[Spinflight]

There's also the question of budget.

It was stated, to much head nodding, that over £60 billion of work in support and new build was going to UK shipyards in the next decade.

We know from Parker that support is £1.4 billion a year, so thats £14 billion+.

Course there's Dreadnought, budgeted at £31 billion but how much of that is within a decade? The first one isn't even expected to launch within a decade.

Also the remaining Astutes, call if £5 billion give or take.

Type 26 is budgeted at £8 billion, though they're struggling with it. Trouble is that too isn't within a decade at the last one isn't expected until 2035.

Lots of ways to speculate, cut and slice. What portion of the two carriers are included for instance? The budget for MARS hasn't been announced to the best of my knowledge, nor MHC.

Also that once POW is launched, and despite T26, there's going to be a big overcapacity in shipyards. Defence committee keen to plug this so we don't lose skills, wouldn't hold your breath though there were encouraging signs from the responses given to the defence committee.

For instance they aren't going to be relying on existing skills and infrastructure, but looking to stimulate provided the shipyards can design and build to the cost target. Also that Type 31 is to be a 20 year program, with no expectation that the initial ships would look like the later ones. The chairman put it that Avengers could be built concurrently with Type 26 as the design is already available and the response was that any design chosen would be well ahead of, and built concurrently with, the Type 26.

I didn't get the impression they were thinking of building 5.

Wow, wasn't expecting anyone on here to favour the Avenger (assuming it does end up being so inexpensive).....it's somewhat nice to hear at least some support for it, since its quite possibly that's what we'll get.

Don't get me wrong, I like the latter designs. If any of them is a dud then I'd single out the Cutlass as it's based on a typically crowded beancounting the weapons third world design. The difference between an RN ship and their better armed foreign brethren is in survivability, build standards and deployability. Something designed for pootling around a coast bristling with weapons for 2 weeks isn't useful for us as our prime operational area is the Gulf and generally far afield.

When I look at the likely costs though Avenger, providing it is a full fat properly built warship, wins on every count. I'm sure sections could be concurrently built around the country, as they are built thus on the Clyde. I also think it would be the most exportable, as I said tempting customers to up or down size.

If we could magic up a design, for free, that was also ready to build then I might think differently. Truth is this process will take several years and several hundred million quid. Which will inevitably amount to fewer hulls for the RN. Which in turns results in the 19 dropping post 2023.

There will be those who insist anything the Royal Navy sails must bristle with weapons though that route leads to 8000T cruisers, which we are buying. Mission decks with space for loads of ISOs are great, except we don't yet have anything useful to put in them. Even the B1 Rivers can carry a few. There's also the simple fact that offboard sensors are more important nowadays. Stick a Merlin on the back of a TAS equipped Avenger and it would be a better ASW platform than a T26 with a Wildcat for instance. There's bound to be UAVs of some description in the near future so I'm thinking small and numerous beats gucci and feature filled. Especially as the latter will have lots of competition.

The Leanders were popular partly based on the idea of sending several, of differing specialities, rather than a single all encompassing design. Can't see any reason why a more numerous class wouldn't beat a 'better' design in operational utility.

[Jake1992]

I believe that the RN shouldn't touch or even consider the Avenger or Cuttless design.

My reasoning is that if they do when it comes down the line to replace them they will have no chance of getting anything more capable, as the treasury will pull the chestnut if well you've managed to do what needed with theses so there's no need for anything more capable.
This will mean the RN having less capable vessels from then on

[LordJim]

Given the problems with the T-26, its increasing costs etc. can anyone see the RN and MoD deciding that they aimed to high and reduce its design requirements to say that of a 21st century T23, had having the numbers to be produced increased back up to 13? This seems far more sensible than makes the whole T-31 redundant. Ok it would require removing at least three headline items;

Multi mission bay.
Chinook capable flight Deck.
Mk41 VLS.

Are any of these absolutely essential? Yes they are all nice to have, but he T-23 can handle a Merlin and guess what the Royal Marines are now using, which can in principal use IFR where as the Chinook version we use cannot. The nature of CAAM means it doesn't have to go where it will be in the T-23 and fitting a 5" gun, leaving room for the possible fitting of either CIWS or ASM (of which there are many to choose from)or both, leaves lost of options for any design. I cannot help thinking the Mk41 was put there by the RN to box the MoD and others into a purchase of the US supersonic ASM and ASROC to fill it. Also a bit of envy in that many NATO members ships have the system fitted, even if used only for Standard SM2.

Yes money has been spent on the T-26 cruiser design but like the Ajax it is no the platform needed. A modern take on the T-23 would give the RN a very capable platforms equal to what other navies are producing and exceeding many. Modern systems would likely reduce its manning levels, and the risk factor as the vast majority of systems would have been tried and tested on the existing, actual T-23s. More important the RN would get 13 new escorts with a common design and capabilities. To speed up production a second manufacturing yard could be brought on line during the programme.

The MoD needs to learn that sometimes you have to cut your losses regarding a programme rather than stick to an unaffordable ideal that drags on costing more and more meaning we end up with less. We have already lost 5 T-26s we could lose even more!

[Jake1992]

LordJim wouldn't you say like many others have that the Spartan design that's just come out seems to be a take on a modern Type 23 or even what the Type 26 started out as ?

[shark bait]

There's also the simple fact that offboard sensors are more important nowadays. Stick a Merlin on the back of a TAS equipped Avenger and it would be a better ASW platform than a T26 with a Wildcat for instance. There's bound to be UAVs of some description in the near future so I'm thinking small and numerous beats gucci and feature filled.

You highlight a good point, but draw a strange conclusiom from it.

As offboard systems become more prevalent, why would we put them on small patrol boats? Surely in that instance a big utility vessel would be more valuabe? One that can host many offboard systems and operate as the hub in a distributed network? more 'Bay class' than 'River class'?

[Spinflight]

Simply because the bigger and more capable vessels can only be in one place at a time.

A Type 26 with 3 x superwonderduper UAV / UUV / xxV would be less effective than 3 x smaller class with 1 x super...

Effectively each frigate can control and monitor a greater area of ocean, whether that be air, surface or subsurface.

[shark bait]

Entirely disagree.

A single drone by its self is no better than the current manned offerings. The distributed lethality concept only becomes advantageous with many nodes in the network, which dictates the need for a big host platform, with enough systems to provide the range, persistence, and resilience required to make it a success.

A big utility vessel could monitor a wider area, and for longer, than a small patrol vessel if both equipped with autonomous systems.

Not to mention numerous small platforms unneceseraliy duplicae crew, which does not give us the lean efficient navy we need.

[shark bait]

Changing the T26 should not be a consideration, it is the perfect 'global combat', 'general purpose', 'multi mission', 'whatever buzz word' surface combatant. It appears to be very well designed, and it will serve the country very well for decades. It is exactly what the Royal Navy needs.

The original plan to build 13 was spot on, but unfortunately that has become unavoidable, and here we are today. They now need to make it work, which means applying the T26 to the global combat role it was designed for, and build the T31 as a tow truck for a sonar, that being easier to replicate than plethora of capabilities required to make a credible GP frigate.

[abc123]

Given the problems with the T-26, its increasing costs etc. can anyone see the RN and MoD deciding that they aimed to high and reduce its design requirements to say that of a 21st century T23, had having the numbers to be produced increased back up to 13? This seems far more sensible than makes the whole T-31 redundant. Ok it would require removing at least three headline items;

Multi mission bay.
Chinook capable flight Deck.
Mk41 VLS.

Are any of these absolutely essential? Yes they are all nice to have, but he T-23 can handle a Merlin and guess what the Royal Marines are now using, which can in principal use IFR where as the Chinook version we use cannot. The nature of CAAM means it doesn't have to go where it will be in the T-23 and fitting a 5" gun, leaving room for the possible fitting of either CIWS or ASM (of which there are many to choose from)or both, leaves lost of options for any design. I cannot help thinking the Mk41 was put there by the RN to box the MoD and others into a purchase of the US supersonic ASM and ASROC to fill it. Also a bit of envy in that many NATO members ships have the system fitted, even if used only for Standard SM2.

Yes money has been spent on the T-26 cruiser design but like the Ajax it is no the platform needed. A modern take on the T-23 would give the RN a very capable platforms equal to what other navies are producing and exceeding many. Modern systems would likely reduce its manning levels, and the risk factor as the vast majority of systems would have been tried and tested on the existing, actual T-23s. More important the RN would get 13 new escorts with a common design and capabilities. To speed up production a second manufacturing yard could be brought on line during the programme.

The MoD needs to learn that sometimes you have to cut your losses regarding a programme rather than stick to an unaffordable ideal that drags on costing more and more meaning we end up with less. We have already lost 5 T-26s we could lose even more!

Good thinking, but IMHO too late. If we cancel the Type 26 now, that will mean at least a few years until new class is fully designed and project is ready for production... So, no cutting the steel in 2017. 2020 is more likely.