Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[clinch]

UK RN T31, if its cost is 250M GBP, while that of T26 is 750M GBP, is 33%. (if 1B GBP, 25%).

This sums up perfectly why the T31 in its current form will be a waste of money, as there is zero chance IMO of a £3.5bn budget (67% of a 750mn T26 for 6 ships, plus a conservative 500mn design budget) - half that would be nearer the mark.

Better to buy 2 more full fat ASW T26s and 3 more Rivers (keeping the 4 B1s) and invest in some enhancements for the latter.

My thoughts,too. How much of what little is left will be used up on a new design. 16 escorts, 12 patrol ships, one of each built every two years with years spare for other vessels.

[WhitestElephant]

A couple more ASW T26 is far more valuable, capability wise, than 5, 6 or even 10 pretend frigates (I.e T31).

A River B3 with hangar / space for future MCM kit and 3 x 30 mm's is perfect for constabulary duties. Build 16 or so, and they will be cheap as chips - replacing the Hunts, Sandowns, GP T23s. Great stuff.

Fit CAMM to QE and PoW.

[donald_of_tokyo]

There is zero basis for either number (750 or 250) so any math based on them is pure nonsense.

My point is, T31 can be 1/3 or 1/4 or even 1/5 of T26 in its cost, while the other "2nd-rate" escorts are 60-80% of their 1st-rate escort.

Number (750M) for T26 is NOT zero basis, but I agree it could range between 750M to 1100M. As you know, it does not change the point a lot.

Number for T31 is zero. But here zero means, not only "zero basis" (just an "leak" article), but also "there is zero budget assigned to T31 to date", as TD (? as I remember) said. In other words, we need to either
- cut something,
- increase the total navy budget,
- or hope for some big programs to come under the initial budget.
I think the 1st one is more likely than the 2nd, and the 3rd one is very unlikely.

[ArmChairCivvy]

other "2nd-rate" escorts are 60-80% of their 1st-rate escort.

- a good point

it does not change the point a lot

- another good point!

either
- cut something,
- increase the total navy budget,
- or hope for some big programs to come under the initial budget.

Wrong
- the T31s will come into the construction schedule in parallel
- the more expensive units will be extended over time so much that
A. at times we might fall under 8 ASW (the T23s dropping dead in their boots), and
B. that will force a consideration of an ASW version of the "noisy" T31 (noisy on the relative scale, relative to the Rolls Royce)

This "the absolute sums do not matter, but the shoe horning into the yearly number does" argument is actually Ron's favourite

[donald_of_tokyo]

http://navaltoday.com/2017/08/17/darpa- ... navy-ship/

Very interesting approach, "sensor-carrying parasail, dubbed Towed Airborne Lift of Naval Systems (TALONS)"

[Caribbean]

that will force a consideration of an ASW version of the "noisy" T31 (noisy on the relative scale, relative to the Rolls Royce)

It's "lucky" that we've apparently just ordered 3 extra sonar tails isn't it

[ArmChairCivvy]

It's "lucky" that

In the kafkaesque "world" of the MoD, I think that is a good expression

[Ron5]

@donald-san, there is zero basis for your 750 million as a low number of a range. Fallon said anywhere between 500m and 1 billion. Nobody else has said anything else more definitive. And he's a proven liar.

We could try using algebra, let's see:

If x is the treasury calculated unit price for the 8th Type26, 5x would be the cost of completing the class as planned.

Treasury says 5x is too much so let's assume they think it's 25% more expensive than it should be. I pick 25% based on the survey that found the average price of an ASW frigate is $125k per ton and a GP frigate, 100k per ton.

So the Type 31 budget is 25% less than 5x, let's say 4x.

I like your number for Type 31 design as being that same as one ship. Seems reasonable to me.

The MoD and PM have stated they'd like to grow the number of escorts with the type 31 so let's assume they want 7 to replace 5 Type 23.

so each Type 31 needs to cost 4x/(7+1) = 0.5x.

That means the price for each Type 31 needs to be no more than 50% of a Type 26.

What do you think?

[Ron5]

Another way of doing it is to reckon the Treasury doesn't want to pay more each year than the cost of TOBA. Going from memory (a really bad idea), TOBA is about 300 million a year. So one Type 31 a year means 300 million each.

[Caribbean]

TOBA is about 300 million a year. So one Type 31 a year means 300 million each.

Not unreasonable, if you assume that TOBA only covers the metal-bashing side. If you exclude the design and infrastructure costs, £600m might be reasonable for the actual build cost of a T26 (it also roughly tallies with the $125k/tonne metric). The other costs add around £300m per hull
Assuming that there is some amount of cross-decking of the more expensive equipment off the T26s onto the T31 and that the T31 IS in the 4000t range, then £300m each is not unreasonable (it also tallies roughly with the $100k/tonne metric). The cross-decking may also give sufficient leeway for some of them to get reasonable ASW capabilities

Quick edit: Just realised that I wrote "cross-decking of the more expensive equipment off the T26s onto the T31 ". Meant T23 onto T31, of course

[abc123]

Fallon said anywhere between 500m and 1 billion. Nobody else has said anything else more definitive. And he's a proven liar.


The MoD and PM have stated they'd like to grow the number of escorts with the type 31 so let's assume they want 7 to replace 5 Type 23.

A small contradicton?

[abc123]

http://www.mod.go.jp/atla/pinup/pinup290809.pdf

.

Interesting shape of top of the sensor mast...

[ArmChairCivvy]

It is quite important to understand TOBA: before (1); during (2) and after (3)

" An important consideration was that under HM Treasury-
approved Yellow Book framework, as the major customer of BAE Systems warship-
building business, the cost of future industrial under-utilisation would fall on the
Department as would a proportion of the rationalisation costs. The liabilities are not
created by the ToBA (1), and at its expiration the Department would no longer be liable(3) for
any rationalisation costs.

The ToBA was signed in July 2009. The carrier contract of July 2008 was signed
on the basis of a Heads of Terms agreement for the ToBA. The ToBA commits BAE
Systems shipbuilding to reach world class standards of value for money in shipbuilding
as determined by third party benchmarking by 2018 and provides guarantees (2) to
BAE Systems of a minimum level of warship building and support activity of around
£230 million a year. In return, BAE Systems agreed to sustain a set of quantified Key
Industrial Capabilities. In years where the workload falls below the required levels, the
Department is liable for funding the shortfall to maintain the Key Industrial Capabilities"

[ArmChairCivvy]

Now, with that "eine kleine Einleitung" and considering that on the glacial time line of T26 the TOBA is just about to expire, I seem to remember that
- after the first T26 hitting the water (far from operational) the second one will take 3 yrs to do the same and then the (assumed/ likely) drum beat is to be one every two years
- T23s will start dropping like flies, one a year, completing in 2036 (already a change by one year from earlier plans)

A little bit of Excel graphing will give us " the gap" that the T31 is supposed to mind
- however, scraping together a TOBA-like turnover for BAES, even with other yards participating (and support and fitting out counting in) will be easy

[Ron5]

Fallon said anywhere between 500m and 1 billion. Nobody else has said anything else more definitive. And he's a proven liar.


The MoD and PM have stated they'd like to grow the number of escorts with the type 31 so let's assume they want 7 to replace 5 Type 23.

A small contradicton?

No

[donald_of_tokyo]

TOBA is nothing bad. Hoping to keep the ship building industry without investment is a complete fantasy. Simply impossible. Also, with T26 coming one every 2 years, TOBA requirement is already filled. (If T26 is 730M GBP per unit, it means 365M GBP per year, excluding design cost. If T26 is more expensive, it is more over TOBA requirement). In other words, we do not need to think about TOBA at least until 2036 or so, even without T31.

[ArmChairCivvy]

we do not need to think about TOBA at least until 2036

You are quite right (it expires soon).

[donald_of_tokyo]

No, I mean HMG must contract TOBA again. There is a big risk of "ship building gap" after 2036.

[ArmChairCivvy]

HMG must contract TOBA again

I see

[Jake1992]

Would something like these help releve the pressure on the T class's. Build them as multi perpouse utility vessel to take over MCM, survey, counter piratecy, carrebean patrol and Falklands and Gib rolls. Say a fleet of 18 plus to allow the T class's to concentrate solely on CBG ARG and Dreadnoroughts.

Build them to the same survivability standards as the RB2s or just above, replace the Sea RAM on one and canister lurnchers on the other design with a small set of VLS for 12 or so CAMM, but other than that to me they seem like a perfect fit.

[Zealot]

OPV.png

[Ron5]

TOBA is nothing bad. Hoping to keep the ship building industry without investment is a complete fantasy. Simply impossible. Also, with T26 coming one every 2 years, TOBA requirement is already filled. (If T26 is 730M GBP per unit, it means 365M GBP per year, excluding design cost. If T26 is more expensive, it is more over TOBA requirement). In other words, we do not need to think about TOBA at least until 2036 or so, even without T31.

Not all the cost of the T26 is being spent with Bae. But i'm sure enough is to meet TOBA.

If Parkers' report is accepted, Bae would be reduced to merely an assembler of modules built in non naval/non-military workshops. I'm sure the Treasury would argue that TOBA would therefore need to be reduced.

After all, that's the main reason they commissioned Parker in the first place.

[ArmChairCivvy]

If Parkers' report is accepted, Bae would be reduced to merely an assembler of modules built in non naval/non-military workshops. I'm sure the Treasury would argue that TOBA would therefore need to be reduced.

No need as it will expire at the same time (thereabouts ) when the first T26 hits the water: "In July 2009, the business signed a 15-year Terms of Business
Agreement with the UK MoD, providing a minimum of 15 years exclusivity
for the design, build and integration on specified MoD shipbuilding
programmes, including the Future Surface Combatant."

It just means that there will be competition in the hulls. propulsion and and basic navigation systems area, unlikely to be more than 40% of the total contracted value. The expensive stuff (not all made by BAES itself sure) will be integrated and fitted by them... the 15 years has put them in an unassailable position from this POV.
- hmmm, the ships even today sail from one yard to the next (same owner) for this

[Ron5]

How will the ability to design/build complex ships like the T-45 replacement be preserved during the period while the lego patrol ships are being produced?

[ArmChairCivvy]

How will the ability to design/build complex ships like the T-45 replacement be preserved during the period while the lego patrol ships are being produced?

Errrm... have you not heard about the NDP (they do the complex design, basically turn concept Duplos into build-able Legos:
" the Naval Design Partnering Team:

Unprecedented level of access to MOD core subject matter knowledge in ship design

No requirement for commercial growth, thus independent and trustworthy

Access to multi-company design specialists in many disciplines"

Basically, anyone who wants to play with the resulting Legos will have to contribute relevant designers to the Duplo team.

TOBA was devised as the means to cross the (design) death valley from carriers to what is beyond T26s.