Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

Leaping from there to "let's use a cross channel ferry instead" though rather hilariously negates your argument. On the one hand calling for a warrier warship, on the other calling for something that could only be used for a day trip to Calais.
My entire point is that an escort that can't escort is not an escort. Type 31 is not an escort; and it does not respond adequately to any of the tasks listed for it. In the FRE role is pointless, in the Caribbean is handicapped, in the Gulf it is a joke.

If it has to be a constabulary ship, yes, i very much prefer the converted Point class. Because it has the space, aviation facilities, boat facilities, stores, endurance and wider usefulness to actually achieve something. Something which would extend all the way up to releasing the Bay LSDs from both Caribbean and Gulf committments for more flexible tasking within the task group.

Type 31 achieves the root square of nothing. An OPV with a Wildcat will already come along with MHC once it starts. Building not one but two classes of "super-OPVs", and with the River Batch 3 on top, is the quintessential definition of wasting money. From a fleet of sole "first rates" to as many as three "constabulary" classes flattened on the low end of the spectrum? For me it is and will continue to be demented.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Spinflight »

A roro ferry in the Gulf..... :o

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Regarding the T31 and what can we expect for an average unit cost of £250m, I think the real (and quite exciting) answer is we will have to wait and see.

There are reasons to be optimistic, when you look at the unit price of the OPVs Babcock has been building for Ireland (or even the Project Khareef corvettes).

There are reasons to be pessimistic, when you look at the unit cost of the T26 or batch 2 Rivers.

I think the RN is expecting that £250m is enough to get them something above the (very low) baseline that they set. A part of the Value Management phase due to start in a month or two is to help answer questions about, once the baseline has been met, how best to spend any money left in the budget and get the most value for the RN. For example, is it better to have:
•24 CAMM, a 76mm main gun, an entry level HMS and a CAPTAS 2 tail , or
•48 CAMM, a 57mm main gun, a mid range HMS and no tail, or
•24 CAMM, a 57mm main gun, entry level HMS, no tail and enhanced C2
•etc. etc.

Assessment of most value for the RN will be based on complex calculations of mission effectiveness including a range of combat missions appropriate to the given tasks set for T31.

Interesting times ahead.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Spinflight wrote:US Coast Guard cutters are fully fledged warships in construction
Not quite true.The bigger cutters are indeed generally built to Navy construction standards but do not meet other USN standards such as frigate survivability.

It takes more than construction standards to make a warship. They are not "fully fledged warships" and their construction price and usage reflects that.

The NSC, which is the basis for the Frigate design that's on offer from Ingalls, costs about $700m each in its coastguard form. Approx 2.5 times the Type 31 budget. The frigate version is probably 50% more.

They're not "tubs" either.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Aethulwulf wrote:Regarding the T31 and what can we expect for an average unit cost of £250m, I think the real (and quite exciting) answer is we will have to wait and see.

There are reasons to be optimistic, when you look at the unit price of the OPVs Babcock has been building for Ireland (or even the Project Khareef corvettes).

There are reasons to be pessimistic, when you look at the unit cost of the T26 or batch 2 Rivers.

I think the RN is expecting that £250m is enough to get them something above the (very low) baseline that they set. A part of the Value Management phase due to start in a month or two is to help answer questions about, once the baseline has been met, how best to spend any money left in the budget and get the most value for the RN. For example, is it better to have:
•24 CAMM, a 76mm main gun, an entry level HMS and a CAPTAS 2 tail , or
•48 CAMM, a 57mm main gun, a mid range HMS and no tail, or
•24 CAMM, a 57mm main gun, entry level HMS, no tail and enhanced C2
•etc. etc.

Assessment of most value for the RN will be based on complex calculations of mission effectiveness including a range of combat missions appropriate to the given tasks set for T31.

Interesting times ahead.
I disagree, we can look at international ships and see what can be bought with the same money. Don't forget that £250m is NOT unit cost. It's average cost to design, develop, build and service. To be generous, that could mean a £200m or $270m ship.

So look and see if you can find a credible 120m, 4k ton, 140 person accommodation, high end radar, flight deck and hangar, frigate for $270m of 2023 dollars.

Dammed if we can.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aethulwulf wrote:There are reasons to be optimistic...

There are reasons to be pessimistic.
We have one hand in the fridge, the other on a hot stove - and we are getting very close to finding the optimum ;)

The beauty of the Value Mgt phase is that we can have it all... but not on one vessel! The approach so far
Ron5 wrote:The NSC, which is the basis for the Frigate design that's on offer from Ingalls, costs about $700m each in its coastguard form. Approx 2.5 times the Type 31 budget.
- good points, but the statement re: that class was that it is 90% built to a frigate std (not meaning weapons; the sensor set is not far behind, though, including full EW)
- no wonder that turning it into a frigate was a quick proposal to make - came about before the FFG(X) rqrmnts being circulated, in fact
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 »

Ron5 wrote:and service
Don't think that is the case. It is the mandated basis for decision making (in this case selection and spec refinement), but just think back to a snr RN person mentioning the £ 11 or 12 bn for the T26s on that basis - the press had a field day, without bothering to explain what was included.
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)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

One thing Iv notice people neglecting when descusing the price bracket for the T31 is HMG ambiguity on it, yes they stated a £250m hard price ceiling but in the same breath they said that if industry can't meet that then they'll have to look at it again.

Now to me that could mean one of two things, one they will cut numbers to push up per unit price or two they have set this very low figure to start as a test for the wider industry to see what is really capable for that price instead of just having to take the word of BEA as they have for years this would give them a bench mark for the future.

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 »

Spinflight wrote:You still talking about a cross channel ferry?

The gumps spent about $150 million converting theirs, hence you might get a single new chopper, but not a Merlin.

What precisely do you think this could do that one of our current RFAs couldn't?
I was trying to stay generic, but my direct suggestion its a not a cross channel ferry but a new build bay class.

Justification based on the 15,000 tonne polar ship being built for £150m
  • £10,000 per tonne
  • Bay class = 16000 tonnes
  • 10,000 x 16,000 = £160m
  • + 20% for engineering = £192m
  • + £50m for 2 new wildcat
  • + £5m for 2 CB90
  • ---------------------------------
  • = £247m

(+ A bunch of other systems ripped from the old T23's)
Spinflight wrote:You do realise that the MoD wouldn't allow a cross channel ferry to go anywhere with even the slightest threat of shooty shooty without an escort?
The same can be said for the T31, which is shaping up to be a patrol vessel with no credible combat ability.

This project is not going to deliver a surface combatant, it is going to deliver an ocean going patrol vessel, so there is no point spending extra cash to stick with the traditional frigate form factor so it looks like we have more combatants on Wikipedia.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Aethulwulf wrote:
For example, is it better to have:
•24 CAMM, a 76mm main gun, an entry level HMS and a CAPTAS 2 tail , or
•48 CAMM, a 57mm main gun, a mid range HMS and no tail, or
•24 CAMM, a 57mm main gun, entry level HMS, no tail and enhanced C2
•etc. etc.
.
Do you really think such combinations as these are affordable in a ca. 4000t hull, built at least partially to RN standards, for an average price of £250?Y expectations are now so low that any of the above suggestions now seems like a positive outcome...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Isn't it more (for now) about ensuring that certain (most likely) upgrade paths will incur a minimum cost later.
- so, we are not building silver bullets; rather getting hulls in the water?

For years the RN was subject of criticism for not doing that;now that they've seen the light, the storm is equally ferocious :(
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
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

Spinflight wrote:A roro ferry in the Gulf.....
Yes. In place of a Bay, not of a Type 45. You might have missed it, but the US Navy itself is sending there a literal converted tanker.

Shock!
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

shark bait wrote:(+ A bunch of other systems ripped from the old T23's)
Integrating these systems will need 100M GBP or more, I guess. CMS is never cheap.
Spinflight wrote:You do realise that the MoD wouldn't allow a cross channel ferry to go anywhere with even the slightest threat of shooty shooty without an escort?
The same can be said for the T31, which is shaping up to be a patrol vessel with no credible combat ability.
This project is not going to deliver a surface combatant, it is going to deliver an ocean going patrol vessel, so there is no point spending extra cash to stick with the traditional frigate form factor so it looks like we have more combatants on Wikipedia.
Compared to Bay, any T31e will be much fighty and damage tolerant. Surely not in the same league.

Bay is a cargo vessel, let them carry cargo, which means they are a match-box, and we shall not let them face enemy fire (such as RPG).

T31e is a Corvette (or a pimped up OPV, if you like to call it so). It is very much "pimped-up" than even a River B2 (cost 3 times more). River B2 is much less match-box than Bay, simply because they do not have though-deck large cargo-bay. What is more, the "3 times cost" is not sinking in vain, but used to make it more fighty and more damage tolerant.

Gabriele-san and Shark-bait-san is I think putting a single "red-line" between escorts and others. I can see two or three lines there, regarding fightlyness and damage control. As you know, everything in fight is "relative", so "2-3 lines" is what I think is the right way to understand it.

Again, no one here is saying T31e is an escort, at least not me. But, that does not mean it sits in the same league as Bay. No.

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Integrating these systems will need 100M GBP or more, I guess. CMS is never cheap.
A new CMS is already being rolled out across the T23 fleet, just reuse that.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Compared to Bay, any T31e will be much fighty and damage tolerant. Surely not in the same league.
If it's not a combatant who cares? Whats wrong with taking the HMS Ocean approach again?
@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 »

shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Integrating these systems will need 100M GBP or more, I guess. CMS is never cheap.
A new CMS is already being rolled out across the T23 fleet, just reuse that.
....

I cannot believe you say so. Systems integration of complex systems is never that easy. Do you understand you are practically saying,
"build Venator 110 hull in full escort standard with 250M GBP, and cut and paste the CMS and armaments from T23mod. This will give you a proper light frigate within 250M GBP"?

No, never happen. Re-use is there, so if you say "not 100M GBP but 50M GBP", I can say "might be". But never more cheap. Sorry, I think it just your simple typo (or too much exaggeration).
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Compared to Bay, any T31e will be much fighty and damage tolerant. Surely not in the same league.
If it's not a combatant who cares? Whats wrong with taking the HMS Ocean approach again?
I care. Threats are relative. Simply because so, HMS Ocean can be based on merchant vessel hull (she can stay within relatively protected area, simply because she is a helicopter carrier and do not have well-dock, which means she will never go near the enemy). She is a HVU protected by escorts. T31e is required to go in singleton, albeit in "relatively low threat" region. In other words, T31e is required to "fight". Of course not the pier-2-pier hi-end war, but a way against terrorists, at least.

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Zero Gravitas »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Isn't it more (for now) about ensuring that certain (most likely) upgrade paths will incur a minimum cost later.
Yes. T31e is supposed to be a programme that can more easily deliver hulls with a wider spectrum of capabilities than other attempts.

We're criticising the base, empty model here.

If we never get anything more than the base model , that criticisim may be valid, but if later models are mini-T26s then less so.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Zero Gravitas wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Isn't it more (for now) about ensuring that certain (most likely) upgrade paths will incur a minimum cost later.
Yes. T31e is supposed to be a programme that can more easily deliver hulls with a wider spectrum of capabilities than other attempts.

We're criticising the base, empty model here.

If we never get anything more than the base model , that criticisim may be valid, but if later models are mini-T26s then less so.
Fair point, but even in the Government plans there is nothing in the plan for any follow up. If it's a T45 replacement then starting from this base would be madness. The follow up either has to be the MH(P)C or it creates the budget space to have follow ons. I hope the latter but if so the money is very well hidden...
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Zero Gravitas wrote:We're criticising the base, empty model here.

If we never get anything more than the base model , that criticisim may be valid, but if later models are mini-T26s then less so.
Then the moment they actually put tools to metal and physically start adding those extra capabilities, we will stop criticising it.

"We're going to upgrade as needed" is lip service. Nothing more.

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Zero Gravitas »

I admit my use of "if" in my post above is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

Just pointing out that the criticism here may be fair for the base model but we don't yet know whether it is fair for the programme as a whole.

Also doubt existing ships will be FFBNW, or otherwise easily upgraded, instead assume they would order new hulls with more bells and whistles depending on the threat.

I'm not advocating this approach - just my assumption.

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by james k »

If you can build the RRS Sir David Attenborough for £200M in a UK yard then you can build a frigate for £50M less and any ship able to spend its operational career in the Antarctic will be pretty damned close to naval standards even exceeding them. Many here seem to complain about, well everything really, especially capability yet the Danish Thetis Class Frigate has both flexibility and capability in a 3500 ton package by using the STANFLEX system.

I just hope that in the various shipbuilders of the UK there are more people willing to try and make it work rather than standing back and saying why it cannot be done. And if there are not then they don't deserve to stay in business.

The RN and therefore the nation is desperate and £250M isn't some trifling sum no matter what anyone says. If British builders can't do the job for that money, I'm pretty damned sure other nations shipbuilders will be more than pleased to do it for us.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:There are reasons to be optimistic...

There are reasons to be pessimistic.
We have one hand in the fridge, the other on a hot stove - and we are getting very close to finding the optimum ;)

The beauty of the Value Mgt phase is that we can have it all... but not on one vessel! The approach so far
Ron5 wrote:The NSC, which is the basis for the Frigate design that's on offer from Ingalls, costs about $700m each in its coastguard form. Approx 2.5 times the Type 31 budget.
- good points, but the statement re: that class was that it is 90% built to a frigate std (not meaning weapons; the sensor set is not far behind, though, including full EW)
- no wonder that turning it into a frigate was a quick proposal to make - came about before the FFG(X) rqrmnts being circulated, in fact
Ingalls says the frigate version (not the coastguard cutter) is 70% Naval standards. I assume you made up your 90%.

The cutters development has been far from smooth. One problem being is wasn't originally strong enough for the bad weather encountered in coastguard service. Found out after the first ship was in service. Doesn't exactly scream global capability does it?

Some folk reckon the frigate version would cost north of $1 billion. So based on cost, we should be comparing it to a fully fledged Type 26.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:and service
Don't think that is the case. It is the mandated basis for decision making (in this case selection and spec refinement), but just think back to a snr RN person mentioning the £ 11 or 12 bn for the T26s on that basis - the press had a field day, without bothering to explain what was included.
Demonstration and build phases contracts include the first set of service/support costs. No reason to believe it's different for Type 31. Unless you believe in the tooth fairy....

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Let's not assume too much, put down the specifics:
The NSC is built to about 90% military standards, designed to US Navy Damage Stability Criteria and to Level 1 Survivability standards. The NSC has degaussing capability and the fact that it has a full EW fit (as standard) may help ;) with survivability, too, even though stds say nothing about that side of things.
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 »

Ron5 wrote: include the first set of service/support costs.
You are getting a bit tiresome; that is quite a limited item. In Australia the number of years stipulated for inclusion in the "sticker price" so that comparisons are like with like is something that we should aspire to :idea: . Or not? :?

Is it a hobby for you to try to debase what I am saying? Has not gone too well, lately :D Or before. Quite the contrary, in fact. Or what say you?
- my count (not assuming) is that you have been out for count in... 90% f the cases ;) Luckily the record is there and does not go away.
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Ingalls is on record as saying frigate would be built to about 70% naval standards. You cherry picking a few standards and excluding others doesn't make that 90%.

Post Reply