Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald a RFA or a T26 can patrol for pirates. In times of war or sea denial the T31e will have been a waste of money

No objection. T31e is for "presence against terrorists" and "APT-S", as I said. (and may be some of the FRE tasks.) T26 is too expensive so they cannot "exit" in such area. Bay are large and slow, far from optimal. In case of "Patrol for pirates", many assets can be used as part time job, from Echo-class to MARS-SSS, and from River B2 and T31e and T26/T45.

[Ron5]

I actually was invited onto a Floreal a few years back while it was visiting the island I was staying on. No just me, anyone who was wandering by. Funny little ship not much bigger than a big fishing boat. Not in very good condition. Crew were friendly enough.

I think you'd have to be a pretty naive local to be impressed with its presence. Especially in an area where AB's are seen more frequently.

[shark bait]

Bay for anti-terrorists is a bad idea

Stick 5 Apache on the back and 4 CB90 in the dock and its a dam sight better equipped than a Floreal type.

The US are building, and will very soon deploy a converted tanker in this role.

But, ship and patrol aircraft are different.

But they both provide maritime security, that's what is important.

T31e program is just proposing vice-versa

No. The T31e program exists solely so politicians can continue to pretend they are growing the Royal Navy. It does not exist to deliver any real capability.

[seaspear]

Having a ship built to a tight budget with say a capacity to carry a Merlin that may cost 35-40 million pounds on a ship without a towed sonar array is a waste ,

[donald_of_tokyo]

Stick 5 Apache on the back and 4 CB90 in the dock and its a dam sight better equipped than a Floreal type.

Idea itself is good, but its operation cost will be twice or more higher than deploying a T31e. Also, even a few RPG in ambush or a single ASM can kill the Bay with 5 Apache onboard. So this idea needs to be either "located when there is no at-sea threat exists", or "deploy with T26/T45 accompanied". Different type of assets, they are.

But, ship and patrol aircraft are different.

But they both provide maritime security, that's what is important.

Do not agree. They differ in HOW to provide maritime security. As you've said, in ASW, T26 and Merlin and P-8A have different roles. It is the same in maritime security.

The T31e program exists solely so politicians can continue to pretend they are growing the Royal Navy.

Partly agree.

It does not exist to deliver any real capability.

Do not agree. (but anyway this only means we have different idea. No problem, I guess ... )

Good point of T31e is that its requirement is consistent with the cost. It is only 250M GBP. So, it is clearly aiming at something "a bit upgraded" Floreal, as clearly seen by the RFI not having any mention on "war fight". It is completely different from saying "with innovative approach and low-rist armaments, we can build T26 with 350M GBP per hull" which was "clearly" a lie from the beginning, and "really" shown to be a lie later. These lie hollowed-out RN very very significantly... T31e does not look so. This is the good point.

Bad point of T31e is even though it is clearly NOT an escort, governments continues to call it a "frigate". From the cost, and also from the RFI, it is not a frigate clearly.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Having a ship built to a tight budget with say a capacity to carry a Merlin that may cost 35-40 million pounds on a ship without a towed sonar array is a waste ,

Agreed. This is why Merlin is NOT required as MUST, in the T31e RFI. If we want a Merlin there, it is Merlin HC4 not HM2. If later with budget, a CAPTAS4 was added, then can carry Merlin HM2. So, for future "possibility" are we going to carry Merlin or not, is the option here.

[Aethulwulf]

The mistake here is thinking of the Merlin as only an ASW asset. In reality, its extra range and payload enables a lot that a Wildcat would find difficult / impossible:

Combat Search and Rescue
Casualty evacuation (e.g. MERT)
RM sniper to disable go-fast boat engines
Fast roping RM team on to a vessel at sea
Evacuation of UK nationals
Insertion of SF team
etc.

It is not an accident that the River B2 flight decks are sized for Merlins.

While a Merlin FD and hanger are not a core requirement for the T31, if there is money to build some of the extra features, they are likely to be a much higher priority than a towed sonar array.

[Gabriele]

Having a ship built to a tight budget with say a capacity to carry a Merlin that may cost 35-40 million pounds on a ship without a towed sonar array is a waste

Having large aviation spaces on a ship is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER a waste. Chances are, the Wildcat hangar will become the biggest brake on the ship's in service "evolution" when concurrent helicopter + RWUAS become the norm and the Navy finds out that "oh, crap. Need more space."

You'll never regret a large hangar, never.

[PAUL MARSAY]

Any more news on the venator 120 that BMT mentioned ?

[PAUL MARSAY]

Agree with Gabi , a large hello deck and hanger is never a waste . Tag on a large mission bay underneath and that's the ideal stern for me . Build the rest similar to the venator 110 (120) that's the type31e for me . As a wannabe I would love a second Camm silo aft of the funnel, I am living in the hope of spear 3 becoming seaspear 3 someday.

[Lord Jim]

What must not happen with the T-31e is to go down the same route as the T-21. There must be sufficient space and weight growth to allow future expansion of the design, not just for the RN but also exports. If it is built just big enough for the basic RFI, then it will be a major missed opportunity for both the MoD and Industry. This is why having a hanger that can handle at least a NH-90 or SH-60 is vital. Ideally from a UK perspective being able to handle a Merlin would bring Many benefits.

I had a look at the Italian Minerva class light frigate last night. It is a small ship, 1300t full load, without aviation facilities but in standard form is quiet capable of patrol/presence duties, Their diesel power plant allows a top speed of 25Kts and a range of 3500nm. They have a crew of 120 and are armed with 1 76mm gun, an 8 sell Aspide SAM system and 2x3 ASW TT. Importantly the design allowed for the later installation of a VDS, 4 large Otomat SSM and reloads for the Aspide system. They are built to military specifications and are fitted with more than adequate sensors for their planned roles.

We are looking at he T-31e being at least twice the tonnage. It should be affordable to have a 57/76mm gun, 8 CAMM, 2-4 12.7mm HMG, a hanger able to operate a Merlin and the required sensors for the budget we have. Industry should be able to build an afforable design with the weight and space allowance to fit a TAS or at least a bow Sonar, an additional 8 CAMM and 4-8 containerised SSM at a later date. In addition the TT from the T-23 could be reused. I must emphasis I am not suggesting the idea of the T-31e being FFBNW these additional systems, they would have to be fitted as part of a refit.

Once you have an actually vessels in the water you can improve it. I just hope the MoD and Industry do not allow expectations and capability creep to scupper the project or cause it to be reset time and time again like the programme that finally evolved into the t-26 did.

[Aethulwulf]

Any more news on the venator 120 that BMT mentioned ?

I haven't seen anything beyond Xav's interview with BMT. In this, it was talked about in the context of the US FFG(X) RFI.

Looking at the US RFI against the published Venator 110 information, there are two areas where the Venator 110 will need to be enhanced to meet the US requirements.

The Venator 110 has bunk spaces for 124. The US requirement is to be able to accommodate 200. While a US sized bunk space is not as generous as the RN, some extra room might be needed to get to 200 bunks.

The US RFI also has a requirement for a speed of 28 kts at 80% continuous power. The Venator 110 employs four diesel engines in a Combined Diesel And Diesel (CODAD) arrangement. Assuming the 110 has a length at the water line of 110 m, it's natural max speed for a displacement hull will be 25 kts. A CODAD system is unlikely to have the power needed to push the ship much beyond this maximum. BMT have stated they have worked with Rolls-Royce and GE Power Conversion to considered other propulsion architecture options including a hybrid-electric system. This could be a CODLAG, using a MT30 gas turbine, similar to the arrangement on the S Korean FFX-II (Daegu Class) Multi-Role Frigates.

Adding 10m to the length of the hull would increase the natural hull speed to 27 kts and allow space for a larger more powerful propulsion system to get to the required 28 kts, including the big air downtakes needed for the GT.

[Jake1992]

Agree with Gabi , a large hello deck and hanger is never a waste . Tag on a large mission bay underneath and that's the ideal stern for me . Build the rest similar to the venator 110 (120) that's the type31e for me . As a wannabe I would love a second Camm silo aft of the funnel, I am living in the hope of spear 3 becoming seaspear 3 someday.

So really something like a hybrid between the Venator 110 design and the Spartan design, the stern mission bay and ramp plus the hanger flight deck and rear silos of the Spartan and the rest from the Venator 110?

Sound like a perfect flexible light frigate to me, but very much doubt we'd get something like that though.

What was interesting when watching Xav's interview with BMT was that they surgested the possibility of a hybrid between the Venator 110 and Arroehead 120 as a one of 3 options put forward along with the Venor 110 and Arrowhead 120 as they are.

[Opinion3]

Idea itself is good, but its operation cost will be twice or more higher than deploying a T31e.

But a fraction of the cost of not having the right equipment in times of war. In security, freedom, financial and lives.

They differ in HOW to provide maritime security. As you've said, in ASW, T26 and Merlin and P-8A have different roles. It is the same in maritime security.

Not really, what maritime security does a OPV or T31 provide? We give our soldiers rifles but the moment the opposing force arrives with tanks they too will be asking what security a rifle provides

Good point of T31e is that its requirement is consistent with the cost

Don't agree, what is the requirement? Who did the risk analysis? If you had said the specification was consistent with the cost, I might agree. The specification is vague because the requirement is vague. The Government thinks by providing a budget and an open design competition they will be presented with a design and they can pick the best design and specification. That is fine but I haven't seen or heard but about the risks the Royal Navy faces and the Requirements of the fleet to mitigate the risks and those of that the Navy is there to protect against.

As already said the Government is not doing its job properly.......

[Opinion3]

I am still struggling to subtract costs and capabilities from a type 26 and conclude that a new base design is the cheaper option of

1. Use a base T26 adding only minimal capability (like the T31 RFI). @ a worked up production rate we reckon a fully spec'd T26 would be circa £700m. This being the marginal cost.

2. Using a totally new design, with new tooling and building 5 vessels with minimal capability (as above) but avoiding the pit falls as pointed out such as lack of room for capability, power and weight growth. Total cost for the allotted average £250m incl design, tooling etc

I just think an extra T26 lit should be cheaper

[Ron5]

a worked up production rate we reckon a fully spec'd T26 would be circa £700m

Who reckons that?

There's a lot of numbers floating around on the Type 26 unit cost which are merely guesses. The last reliable cost I have seen was "over 600 million". So let's say 650 million i.e. the same price as the heavier, and more expensive technology, Type 45's.

I think if you gave Bae the go ahead to produce Type 26 as cheaply as possible, units 9 and beyond could be 500 million or less. That's based on the decline in costs seen in manufacturing complex warships in the past, where delivery was not constrained. Most of the savings coming from improved project management. Fewer workers standing around waiting for others to finish, means a much quicker build which directly translates to a cheaper ship.

But the Treasury doesn't want that. They also don't want you to know the true costs of these ships. They're more than happy at the guesses that say a billion each.

[Lord Jim]

In an ideal world we would set up production of the T-26 to the rate of one every 18 months and let it run, adapting and improving the design as we go. As suggested that would drive down costs and allow programmes like the T-45 replacement to be far cheaper and easier down the line. The same could apply to the T-31e as well using the same basic design to initially produce basic vessels then later increase their capability and diversify their roles, possibly selling the original five on.

[Opinion3]

@Ron, broadly agree - we don't know the figure although the general point I am making still stands. Lord Jim suggests a drum beat of 18 months per ship. Personally I think that is too slow, actually do need more Naval ships the numbers are too low. I would also be considering how to encourage speedier builds, because a ship yard would need an incentive not to go slow. If the build it 20% faster, they need a new source of income, they and the customer both need to share in the reduced costs.

[Opinion3]

Is there not the possibility of competition already

Two yards to assemble and fit out Rosyth and Clyde
Several yards to build blocks - Did the QE have five?

So if we are T31 ing there are other ways to generate competition. You would get the efficiencies as quickly but with two different classes and locations that is true anyway.

[seaspear]

If the vessel is to have an asw role it would need to have the towed sonar and helicopter to prosecute the detection's , the helicopter could not be expected to be as effective just dunking for possible contacts , remembering there is maintenance time for every hour spent aloft so you would not want to send helicopter aloft constantly.
There is though emerging, remote controlled helicopters that may be of use in some roles likely to be much cheaper than a Merlin

[Lord Jim]

The reason I suggested 18 months was more aimed at the funding side than the ability of industry to build them faster. With the T-31e 12 months should be both doable and affordable.

Regarding ASW, the Oliver Hazard Parry class did not have a TASS, only a hull mounted sonar and relied on a helo without a dipping sonar for ASW. Yes the SH-60 used sonar buoys instead but the combination worked. With the RN and T-31e it will probably be the opposite eventually, with the Ship having a TASS and the Helo delivering the ordonnance. However datalinks etc. could sea the helo prosecuting contacts form a third party. Fitting the TT from the decommissioned T-23 would give the T-31e another option.

Given the T-31e would have warfighting as a secondary capability to all intents and purposes, any helo embarked is going to have to fulfil a multitude of roles, for which in the RNs case the Wildcat is a far better option. If, as I hope the classis developed over time the Merlin would become more relevant which is why having a design able to hanger and operate a helo of that size from the outset should be a no brainer.

[Ron5]

Any more news on the venator 120 that BMT mentioned ?

I haven't seen anything beyond Xav's interview with BMT. In this, it was talked about in the context of the US FFG(X) RFI.

Looking at the US RFI against the published Venator 110 information, there are two areas where the Venator 110 will need to be enhanced to meet the US requirements.

The Venator 110 has bunk spaces for 124. The US requirement is to be able to accommodate 200. While a US sized bunk space is not as generous as the RN, some extra room might be needed to get to 200 bunks.

The US RFI also has a requirement for a speed of 28 kts at 80% continuous power. The Venator 110 employs four diesel engines in a Combined Diesel And Diesel (CODAD) arrangement. Assuming the 110 has a length at the water line of 110 m, it's natural max speed for a displacement hull will be 25 kts. A CODAD system is unlikely to have the power needed to push the ship much beyond this maximum. BMT have stated they have worked with Rolls-Royce and GE Power Conversion to considered other propulsion architecture options including a hybrid-electric system. This could be a CODLAG, using a MT30 gas turbine, similar to the arrangement on the S Korean FFX-II (Daegu Class) Multi-Role Frigates.

Adding 10m to the length of the hull would increase the natural hull speed to 27 kts and allow space for a larger more powerful propulsion system to get to the required 28 kts, including the big air downtakes needed for the GT.

So a complete re-design then.

[Ron5]

Agree with Gabi , a large hello deck and hanger is never a waste . Tag on a large mission bay underneath and that's the ideal stern for me . Build the rest similar to the venator 110 (120) that's the type31e for me . As a wannabe I would love a second Camm silo aft of the funnel, I am living in the hope of spear 3 becoming seaspear 3 someday.

So really something like a hybrid between the Venator 110 design and the Spartan design, the stern mission bay and ramp plus the hanger flight deck and rear silos of the Spartan and the rest from the Venator 110?

Sound like a perfect flexible light frigate to me, but very much doubt we'd get something like that though.

What was interesting when watching Xav's interview with BMT was that they surgested the possibility of a hybrid between the Venator 110 and Arroehead 120 as a one of 3 options put forward along with the Venor 110 and Arrowhead 120 as they are.

BMT & Babcocks have since announced that they've agreed to partner for the bid. Babcocks will lead.

[Ron5]

@Ron, broadly agree - we don't know the figure although the general point I am making still stands. Lord Jim suggests a drum beat of 18 months per ship. Personally I think that is too slow, actually do need more Naval ships the numbers are too low. I would also be considering how to encourage speedier builds, because a ship yard would need an incentive not to go slow. If the build it 20% faster, they need a new source of income, they and the customer both need to share in the reduced costs.

Agree but drumbeats are the ultimate deathblow to efficiency. I agree: incentivize (is that a real word?) Bae to build as quick as possible and the prices will tumble. Trouble is that's the very last thing the Treasury wants because the quicker the ships come, the quicker the bills come due. They're pulling the same shit with Type 31 by specifying the delivery schedule and therefore taking the biggest factor in reducing costs away from the shipbuilders.

I've written it a zillion times but once again, the UK parliamentary committee stated that the money wasted in the Astute program by the Treasury insisting on a constant delivery schedule for all the boats, was enough to have built another boat. To me that's staggering. The Astutes actually got more expensive to built. I've never heard of that anywhere before.

[Ron5]

Is there not the possibility of competition already

Two yards to assemble and fit out Rosyth and Clyde
Several yards to build blocks - Did the QE have five?

So if we are T31 ing there are other ways to generate competition. You would get the efficiencies as quickly but with two different classes and locations that is true anyway.

Fundamentally there's not enough UK work to keep multiple shipyards in business. It's questionable if there is enough to keep one. Grayson recognized this (after all, it's blindingly obvious) and said the only way forward was to concentrate all building in one company and guarantee an order stream such that the one yard can invest in the most efficient processes. Other countries do this i.e have an industrial champion. Other parts of the UK defence industry like Rolls Royce engines, MBDA missiles, Bae submarines, and Bae fighters are there. Grayson forced Vospers & Bae to merge by withholding CVF contracts until they did.

Unfortunately the guaranteed order stream vanished thanks to the whims of Brown and Osborne, and tiny orders with tiny profit margins have actively discouraged any investment by Bae. And now this latest nonsense will discourage them further.

The new strategy only guarantees frigates, destroyers & carriers must be built in the UK. All other other warships and RFA can and will be built abroad. They forgot all about submarines so who knows?

When the next program comes around (the Type 45 replacement), the UK loser will go belly up. Or the government of the day will play out the farce by opening "competition" to consortia with non-UK companies partnered with UK and the bulk of the work will be done offshore. That's what Germany is doing.

Program after that will be a non-UK purchase. There will be no more UK warship building.

This is the key statement about future procurement in the NSS:

"Fleet Solid Support Shipping Procurement Strategy
64. Our intent is to compete non-warships in order to maintain UK competitive edge for shipbuilding. By testing UK yards against foreign competition we will be able to ensure that the UK sector remains competitive"

It makes zero sense except to a Treasury mandarin. It's basic bullshit. Sir Humphrey would love it. Replace "non-warship" with "T45 replacement" and we'll see the same words again.