Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[marktigger]

i wonder if the biggest factor in escort numbers may end up not being money but manpower

[shark bait]

Make of these what you will, but I found it quite an interesting thought experiment.

Nice charts. I've long said the T31 only makes sense if its build in parallel with the T26, a point I think your charts highlight quite nicely.

If anything I think you've been a little unambitious on the T31 in serive date. I hope we can be a little more agressive with the programme schecule, and get them in service a couple of years sooner than your assumption, shrinking the gap where we only have 18 escorts.

We appear to have more luck selling 2nd hand warships than new ones so maybe not such a mad idea

The recent defence comittee said Admirality is on board with the idea of selling in service ships, as long as adjustments are in place to make up for the loss. Potentially something we'llbe seeing more of. It's certianly the method that sees the best return for the UK.

i wonder if the biggest factor in escort numbers may end up not being money but manpower

Manpower is money, so yes.

[ArmChairCivvy]

It is a pity that the "quote" thingy does not work across pages as I wanted to congratulate SB for being one of the lonely voices in wilderness (about parallel build)>

also winds up with the 6 Type 45 replacements being built concurrently (on the basis of an estimated lifespan of 30yrs for the T45s) with the last 5 Type 26s. I think there may have been more to the decision to curtail Type 26 at 8 hulls than cost alone.

- that is what I have been saying all along
- hull form. Displacement (higher than required for the job "advertised")

with quite a leisurely build schedule for Type 31 (1 shipbuild/2yrs and a cap of 5 hulls) concurrent with Type 26 from 2027 onwards that big drop in numbers essentially disappears, with the fleet hitting 18 escorts at the lowest. With Type 26 capped at 8 hulls it also allows a transition straight into work on the Type 45 replacements, possibly even based on an adapted Type 26.

- we are at that (bolded) number already

a build tempo for type 31 similar to type 26 (1.5 years/shipbuild) with no cap sees the escort fleet increase a little in the early 2030s before pushing into the low 20s by the end of the decade.

- do not worry (about the italics) as
- the only thing you have ignored in the scheduling IS
A block build: NOT a constraint;
B a central military fitting out yard ("Integrator") where the throughput (counted in years) IS A CONSTRAINT

[Engaging Strategy]

A block build: NOT a constraint;
B a central military fitting out yard ("Integrator") where the throughput (counted in years) IS A CONSTRAINT

The broader point I was making is that Type 31 solves a lot of problems, from an escort numbers perspective, even if the finished product comes off the line at a rather leisurely pace. We're talking about ship roughly half the size of Type 26, probably with less complex and bespoke components, being produced with 25% more time per hull (based on the 1 shipbuild per 2yrs output modelled below) in order to keep the whole force pretty stable. The dips to 18 could easily be smoothed out by running a few of the Type 23s for an extra year before they decommission.

graphwrite-25.png

[ArmChairCivvy]

roughly half the size of Type 26, probably with less complex and bespoke components, being produced with 25% more time per hull (based on the 1 shipbuild per 2yrs output modelled below) in order to keep the whole force pretty stable. The dips to 18 could easily be smoothed out by running a few of the Type 23s for an extra year before they decommission.

Exactly. It is not any more difficult than getting a few ducks in a bath tub ordered in a row
- not these: https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/ ... tion=click

but these: http://www.winddeal.net/image/30985/30985-4.jpg

[Aethulwulf]

A block build: NOT a constraint;
B a central military fitting out yard ("Integrator") where the throughput (counted in years) IS A CONSTRAINT

The broader point I was making is that Type 31 solves a lot of problems, from an escort numbers perspective, even if the finished product comes off the line at a rather leisurely pace. We're talking about ship roughly half the size of Type 26, probably with less complex and bespoke components, being produced with 25% more time per hull (based on the 1 shipbuild per 2yrs output modelled below) in order to keep the whole force pretty stable. The dips to 18 could easily be smoothed out by running a few of the Type 23s for an extra year before they decommission.

graphwrite-25.png

If the Type 31 build is pushed 1 year early than you have assumed, and a build drumbeat of one a year is adopted for the T31, this would mean that escort numbers would only drop to 18 for a two year period (2024 & 2025). As you say, this could be covered by a couple of Type 23s run on for an extra year.

In addition, if a total of 6 Type 31s were built at this rate, from 2028 onwards the OSD of the remaining Type 23s could be brought forward so that the last T23 OSD would be 2032. In 2034, with the delivery of the last of the 8 Type 26, total escort numbers would rise to 20.

[seaspear]

With regard to my earlier point on design time for development of perhaps replacement of type 45 ,it would certainly be now known what type of technologies would be needed for a future awd destroyer ,would an evolved Daring class 2 have or should have a stronger asw ability since as shown in previous discussions its not something that could be added to present class , I can understand there are financial constraints on actually building such vessels at present but lessons learnt should mean more efficiencies in a class two in its actual build process

[Opinion3]

So building ships for other Navies doesn't fit in either..... Obviously there are ship yards that could increase capacity but the point is sustainability.

With the US and China both increasing defence spending by circa 7% I expect we too need to start accessing our needs and planes with no radar, ships with no arms and a hollowed out army we too need to take the Russian menace seriously. Personally I think that needs to include increasing the sub hunter numbers

[Repulse]

marktigger wrote:
i wonder if the biggest factor in escort numbers may end up not being money but manpower

Manpower is money, so yes.

Actually, its more than money. The RN has been neglected and a generation of potential sailors have no idea what it's for and would rather work in a comfy "home" office than sail the world. A few more quid will make no difference- the RN will never be able to match the private sector wages for young talent, and to get the additional compelling argumentso to join the navy will require concerted effort from the government, MOD and RN. The carriers could be the catalyst of this in terms of resetting the view, but it will take a generation.

In the next 20 years the RN needs to do more with less (people). However, one branch where I think the increase in people is possible quicker is the RFA.

That is why I think changing strategy to allow more tasks to move from the RN to RFA is key. The main area being the amphibious assault capability, which with some limitations and a focus on OTH could be purely RFA. This would allow RN to free up personnel for ships to escort a separate ARG.

I'd would:
- Extend the T26 order by 4, splitting the 12 into two batches.
- First batch of 6 leave as is.
- Extend the design of the 2nd batch to allow them to handle LCVPs and carry 200 RMs - PLUS still having the first tier ASW capability with TAS etc.
- Scrap the T31 concept and merge into the MHC programme - back to the MHPC concept. Start the build for these in the late 2020s.
- Scrap the Albions (or Transfer to the RFA).
- Build 2 RFA Aviation Support ships, design better than Argus but same concept.
- Buy off the shelf 2 Damen LPD RFA designs, or use the Albions in a RFA role.
- invest in Ship to Shore connectors.

[marktigger]

repulse splitting an amphibious group isn't a great idea.
neither is this idea of mearging the mine hunter with a frigate
the Albions will need replacing to continue to allow concentration of effort on an amphibious operation (read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_war)
Albions would be better replaced with LPH like the Australians and Spannish have with fast ship to shore connectors and embarked helicopters.

Leave the over flow accomidation for crew changes, deploying specialists like FPGRM, UAV support teams NGFS teams which really is what its meant for. Certanly 2 batches would be nice to batches of 8 even better replacing the type 23 build 1:1. So how do you encourage young men and women to join the navy especially in time of high employment? thats the difficulty. The talent the navy want will be snapped up by industry leaving a very small pool to recruit from. Added in that the Army and Airforce have had higher recruiting profiles. But also with the naval overstretch it isn't very appealing to go away for long periods on poorly equipped ships for extended tours and their mates who have joined are telling potential recruits this. added into the mix every 5 years a new govt could come in and bring in mass redundancies as it plays the services like a concetina expanding and contracting it on the whim of the secretary of state.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The broader point I was making is that Type 31 solves a lot of problems, from an escort numbers perspective, even if the finished product comes off the line at a rather leisurely pace. We're talking about ship roughly half the size of Type 26, probably with less complex and bespoke components, being produced with 25% more time per hull (based on the 1 shipbuild per 2yrs output modelled below) in order to keep the whole force pretty stable. The dips to 18 could easily be smoothed out by running a few of the Type 23s for an extra year before they decommission.

"Type 26 1.5yr shipbuild and Type 31 2yr shipbuild"

graphwrite-25.png

Nice plots. I think the "Type 26 1.5yr shipbuild (from 2023) and Type 31 2yr shipbuild (from 2027)" is likely (or my favorite).
- Gap from 2024-2028 can be easily filled (T23s to decommission around here is less than 35 yrs old).
- Gap in 2030 is a bit difficult, because HMS Richmond to decommission here is 35 yrs old. But it is only 1 year.
- Gap around 2035-36 is also easy, because HMS Portland and St Albans is "only" 33 yrs old.

"What kind of a frigate Type-31 will be?", is another story. If the annual cost for frigate build is kept the same,
- I guess the unit cost of T26 (= cost per hull after hull-4 onward) will be 730M GBP ( 8B GBP/(2 [design] + 1 [initial production penalty] + 8 [units] ).
- In other words, annual cost for 1.5 yr shipbuild will decrease by at least 30% or so.
- In other words, 220M GBP per hull = 220M GBP per 1.5 yr = 290M GBP per 2 yrs = 290M GBP per one T31.
I guess, if T31 remains within this cost, "Type 26 1.5yr shipbuild (from 2023) and Type 31 2yr shipbuild (from 2027)" can be realistic.

[abc123]

If my memory serves me correctly, 4-5 years ago costs for single Type 26 were mentioned in 300-500 mil. pounds ballpark? And now, it's 700-800 mil.

What went wrong?

[marktigger]

delay, if they had started when it was 300-500 it would probably still be 800 when it was finished now it be 1bn to1.2 billion by time they finish

[abc123]

delay, if they had started when it was 300-500 it would probably still be 800 when it was finished now it be 1bn to1.2 billion by time they finish

Maybe in 20 years and for the last ship, but for the first ship, i don't think that the number would have been 800...

[Repulse]

repulse splitting an amphibious group isn't a great idea.

I'm not proposing that, single ARG escorted by the additional "extended" T26s. Unless you mean it's a bad idea having separate CBG / ARG then I'll strongly disagree.

neither is this idea of mearging the mine hunter with a frigate

The future is off board systems for MCM, some people argue that the mothership should be cheap, I don't, it needs to be at least a minor warship with some level of ASUW / AAW / ASW protection - otherwise it will be easy for an enemy to neutralise.

[marktigger]

delay, if they had started when it was 300-500 it would probably still be 800 when it was finished now it be 1bn to1.2 billion by time they finish

Maybe in 20 years and for the last ship, but for the first ship, i don't think that the number would have been 800...

delay, if they had started when it was 300-500 it would probably still be 800 when it was finished now it be 1bn to1.2 billion by time they finish

Maybe in 20 years and for the last ship, but for the first ship, i don't think that the number would have been 800...

suspect the first ship would go higher as snags from going from paper to steel are ironed out.

repulse splitting an amphibious group isn't a great idea.

I'm not proposing that, single ARG escorted by the additional "extended" T26s. Unless you mean it's a bad idea having separate CBG / ARG then I'll strongly disagree.

neither is this idea of mearging the mine hunter with a frigate

The future is off board systems for MCM, some people argue that the mothership should be cheap, I don't, it needs to be at least a minor warship with some level of ASUW / AAW / ASW protection - otherwise it will be easy for an enemy to neutralise.

splitting the CBG into penny packets isn't effective if you follow the principles of warfare concentration of forces and economy of effort are very important.

as to MCM vessels they need the levels of protection designed into MCMV's from a counter mine point of view as well like Low magnetic and acoustic signatures

[Engaging Strategy]

If my memory serves me correctly, 4-5 years ago costs for single Type 26 were mentioned in 300-500 mil. pounds ballpark? And now, it's 700-800 mil.

What went wrong?

Pushed to the right and several extensive redesigns. Also T26 went from T23 redux:

Early-Type-26-Image-6-1.jpg

To 7500 ton all-singing all-dancing light cruiser:

Satellite-2.jpg

[dmereifield]

If my memory serves me correctly, 4-5 years ago costs for single Type 26 were mentioned in 300-500 mil. pounds ballpark? And now, it's 700-800 mil.

What went wrong?

Pushed to the right and several extensive redesigns. Also T26 went from T23 redux:

Early-Type-26-Image-6-1.jpg

To 7500 ton all-singing all-dancing light cruiser:

Satellite-2.jpg

How extensive were those early T26 designs? Could they not be contenders for T31?

[donald_of_tokyo]

If my memory serves me correctly, 4-5 years ago costs for single Type 26 were mentioned in 300-500 mil. pounds ballpark? And now, it's 700-800 mil.What went wrong?

Pushed to the right and several extensive redesigns. Also T26 went from T23 redux:
Early-Type-26-Image-6-1.jpg
To 7500 ton all-singing all-dancing light cruiser:
Satellite-2.jpg

How extensive were those early T26 designs? Could they not be contenders for T31?

T26's specification itself is expensive:
1: large mission bay
2: 5in gun with huge automated arsenal
3: 24-cell strike-length Mk.41 VLS
4: super-quiet hull, said to be more quiet than CODLAG FREMM
5: Chinook capable flight deck
with
6: Merlin capable hangar
7: CAPTAS-4
8: 48-cell CAMM
In other words, "1" is totally missing in FREMM, "2-5" is significantly enhance than FREMM, and "6-8" is no less than FREMM, and T26 is significantly larger than FREMM. Also T26 with crew of ~120 requires more intense and expensive automation (including the 5in gun arsenal), compared to FREMM with crew of ~150.

Then, FREMM itself cost 600-700M Euro (excluding the design cost) for Italy and French. And their ship-building industry is better trained than UK's, so 17% higher currency of GBP compared to Euro is negligible. Thus, for me 730M GBP (excluding the design cost) T26 is no surprise.

In short, original cost estimation is just a joke. Remember T45's original cost was also 350M GBP per hull (excluding design cost), which turned out to be 600M GBP or so (again, excluding SeaViper design/software cost), if I remember correctly.

[ArmChairCivvy]

300-500m, midpoint 400m
- for a 4 kt ton ship replacing a 3.5 kt vessel

600m for a 6 kt AAW ship (w/o those mentioned, specific to function R&D costs)

750m for a 7.5 kt global cruiser

The cost model is v complicated; is it per kg or per kt, that's the question.

[shark bait]

The future is off board systems for MCM, some people argue that the mothership should be cheap, I don't, it needs to be at least a minor warship with some level of ASUW / AAW / ASW protection - otherwise it will be easy for an enemy to neutralise.

I think this misses the point. There should be no mothership, it should be a platform agnostic system that can be deployed from any of our assets depending on what is most suitable for the task in hand.

We certainly shouldn't be building new complex platforms to accommodate the system, that really misses the opportunity.

[RetroSicotte]

Much of the Type 26's costing could be considered as having been measured on the old adage of 18 of them.

When that drops to 8, of course the price will skyrocket. Look at HMS Duncan compared to HMS Daring in their costs. Almost halved! Even PoW has ended up vastly more efficient than QE and that's just a second ship.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Much of the Type 26's costing could be considered as having been measured on the old adage of 18 of them.
When that drops to 8, of course the price will skyrocket. Look at HMS Duncan compared to HMS Daring in their costs. Almost halved! Even PoW has ended up vastly more efficient than QE and that's just a second ship.

No big objection, but I remember NAB-san said, from hull 3 or 4 onward, the cost reduction stops.

The first of class ship has always many lessons learned naturally, in both design and process of build. I read somewhere that the modification items "after build" is huge in Daring, still many in Dauntless, a little in Diamond, and none from the 4th to 6th hull.

So I do not think the pure hull cost differs from original 18 hull (wasn't it 16?) program to current 8 hull program. It is the design and initial build cost which is constant (reaching ~3 unit cost, in case of FREMM). If you divide it with 8, surely it is twice larger than in case dividing with 16.

[abc123]

If my memory serves me correctly, 4-5 years ago costs for single Type 26 were mentioned in 300-500 mil. pounds ballpark? And now, it's 700-800 mil.

What went wrong?

Pushed to the right and several extensive redesigns. Also T26 went from T23 redux:

Early-Type-26-Image-6-1.jpg

To 7500 ton all-singing all-dancing light cruiser:

Satellite-2.jpg

IMHO, they should have stayed with the first version.

[RetroSicotte]

Much of the Type 26's costing could be considered as having been measured on the old adage of 18 of them.
When that drops to 8, of course the price will skyrocket. Look at HMS Duncan compared to HMS Daring in their costs. Almost halved! Even PoW has ended up vastly more efficient than QE and that's just a second ship.

No big objection, but I remember NAB-san said, from hull 3 or 4 onward, the cost reduction stops.

The first of class ship has always many lessons learned naturally, in both design and process of build. I read somewhere that the modification items "after build" is huge in Daring, still many in Dauntless, a little in Diamond, and none from the 4th to 6th hull.

So I do not think the pure hull cost differs from original 18 hull (wasn't it 16?) program to current 8 hull program. It is the design and initial build cost which is constant (reaching ~3 unit cost, in case of FREMM). If you divide it with 8, surely it is twice larger than in case dividing with 16.

Purchasing materials and parts in bulk also brings its own discounts too, but you are likely still correct.