UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 01 Mar 2018, 18:59

If bought under the terms of a foreign military sale, the UK would pay exactly the same as the US military would. That's usually the way deals are done but not always.

I don't know of any US military sale to the UK where the US company was paid 2 to 3 times the price paid by the US military. I think that's just a bad rumor. I'd be interested to hear of examples.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Mar 2018, 19:08

Ron5 wrote: pay exactly the same as the US military would


Plus the FMS fee (is it still 2.5%?)
- exc. for partnering prgrms
- more often than not nothing is produced by those prgrms, though... so not a very good way to achieve "savings"

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby benny14 » 01 Mar 2018, 21:33

Also worth noting when thinking about the type 31. The Phalanx CIWS according to that document costs $8.28m, converted to pounds £6.02m. Would seem foolish not to have one for that price.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 01 Mar 2018, 21:40

benny14 wrote:Also worth noting when thinking about the type 31. The Phalanx CIWS according to that document costs $8.28m, converted to pounds £6.02m. Would seem foolish not to have one for that price.


But if we costed that into the T31 budget it will account for 2.5% of the fixed price. So, since, we have a pool of them already, wouldn't it be more likely that they are not included in the project and then much like the RFAs the T31s will have them fitted as and when required.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Mar 2018, 21:52

NickC wrote:32 MK 41 VLS Strike length cells for SM-2s and 24 Mk 56 VLS cells for ESSM's, two eight deck launchers for Harpoon, two 76mm guns, two twin launchers for LWTs, Millennium 35mm cannon & Atlas Elektronik HMS, flight deck


For ours, we could halve everything on T-31s exc. the CIWS and flight deck, and they would still be capable ships. Like the Finns seem to be thinking of putting that number of strike length silos across 4 corvettes, in total. And them being 3 kt only, that will probably mean along the centre line
- regardless, even if they sail empty for the first 5 yrs, the options for a quick capability upgrade would be mind boggling... not that it will happen; just a thought

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 01 Mar 2018, 22:55

Finnish navy gets 4 units of strike length mk41 VLS with $70m in FMS.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/fi ... ng-systems

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby benny14 » 01 Mar 2018, 23:06

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Finnish navy gets 4 units of strike length mk41 VLS with $70m in FMS.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/fi ... ng-systems

With the support costs included. Going of the previous amount I listed. $4.35m per module x 4 = $17.4m. $70m - $17.4m gives us $52.6m / £38.19m for support costs, most likely slightly less considering I do not think they would get the same price as the US gets for the hardware.

"included are spares, handling equipment, test equipment, operator manuals and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, training, technical, and logistical support services, and other related elements of logistical support"

Seems like a 10 year contract. So roughly £28.52m for 9 sets plus £38.19m ish for a 10 year support contract. Total £66.71m not taking in to account scaled support costs for more than 4 units.

"Implementation of this proposed sale will require up to 12 U.S. Government personnel and up to five contractor representatives to travel to Finland providing support over a period of ten years."

dmereifield wrote:So, since, we have a pool of them already, wouldn't it be more likely that they are not included in the project and then much like the RFAs the T31s will have them fitted as and when required.

True. But we will be adding potentially 5 type 31s with 1 CIWS and 9 type 26s with 2 CIWS each, plus the carriers and the tankers. I am not sure how many we have in inventory, if anyone knows?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 02 Mar 2018, 00:10

benny14 wrote:With the support costs included. Going of the previous amount I listed. $4.35m per module x 4 = $17.4m. $70m - $17.4m gives us $52.6m / £38.19m for support costs, most likely slightly less considering I do not think they would get the same price as the US gets for the hardware.
I understand your calculation, but as a rule of thumb, procurement and support is 50:50. Also, what is included in "procurement" differs in many case. Block buy or not will also matter a lot.

If it is 50:50, it is $35M for 4 unit purchase --> $9M or 6.4M GBP. And, I believe T31e RFI requests "training and support", but may be not for 10 years, so, some "support" cost will be needed, in addition.

What is more, Mk.41 VLS is just a "cell". If you want to carry ASROC there, you need front-end-control-electronics boxes and software. TLAM, the same. LRASM is, I believe, designed to use the TLAM front-end electronics and anyway a good software is needed. If CAMM, you need the whole ExLS (which do not need Mk.41 VLS, actually) installed, with the front-end-control-electronics boxes and software. Thus, even if the one 8-cell Mk.41 VLS can come with 6.4M GBP (I think ~10M GBP or so), we need much more to actually use it. TLAM electronics box was, if my memory works, 20M GBP or so. I do not think it is a good idea to add that box to a ship with only 8 cells of VLS.

In case of T26, which carries 24 cells, it is worth doing, I think.
dmereifield wrote:So, since, we have a pool of them already, wouldn't it be more likely that they are not included in the project and then much like the RFAs the T31s will have them fitted as and when required.

True. But we will be adding potentially 5 type 31s with 1 CIWS and 9 type 26s with 2 CIWS each, plus the carriers and the tankers. I am not sure how many we have in inventory, if anyone knows?
Gabrielle-san knows it quite well. I guess 36?
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/un ... baseline-2

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby benny14 » 02 Mar 2018, 01:33

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I guess 36?

Assuming we had to fit the whole fleet we would need 67. If we went of the 1/3 rule, we could equip the 1/3 deployed, and about half of those working up or in training. It does not give us much reserve in a situation where we have to deploy 2/3 of the fleet.

Carriers - 6
Albion/Bulwark - 4
Type 45 - 12
Type 26 - 16
Type 31 - 5
Tide - 8
Wave - 4
Fort - 6
Bay - 6

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 02 Mar 2018, 08:53

Given how things are moving on, the "boxes" for the various Mk41 load outs are going to become play and play, especially with he open architecture CMS being installed on the T-26 and T-31, so it will become a case of pick what you want when you want. The key thing here is you do not have to but everything up front, but down the line. It also eases updates and new systems being developed. This is why the Mk41 is a must for not just the T-26 but also the T-31e and actually the T-45. As for ExLS, yes it does not need the Mk41, but the benefits of the having the latter are far greater than not and simply sticking a few of the former around the ship. Even if we just use the Mk41 for Sea Ceptor initially the growth potential is built in with greatly reduced upgrade costs down the line compared to stand alone systems for similar weapon systems down the line and there is the space issue.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Mar 2018, 10:26

Lord Jim wrote:growth potential is built in with greatly reduced upgrade costs down the line compared to stand alone systems for similar weapon systems down the line and there is the space issue.


All good things in one short sentence... :thumbup:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 02 Mar 2018, 12:24

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:growth potential is built in with greatly reduced upgrade costs down the line compared to stand alone systems for similar weapon systems down the line and there is the space issue.
All good things in one short sentence... :thumbup:
Sorry, I do not agree to your point.
- Mk.41 VLS is so-so cheap but still 5% or so of T31e total cost. Front end electronics and software is the most expensive part. Why not just FFBNW?
- Why not use the same money to simply "enable" CAMM. Here I think, even "12 CAMM" is not guaranteed on T31e (could be a gun + CIWS and CAMM FTR). What is more, ExLS is not yet approved and surely need money to adopt it. No money to spend on anything else, I think. T31e average cost is only 250M GBP, very tiny amount of money RN has. And, if CAMM is the only (and even not guaranteed) missile, we do not need Mk.41 VLS. Just a waste of money.
- On the other hand, I agree it is very good for export. That is why I think FFBNW is good. For RN, there are so many "more important/urgent" issues.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 02 Mar 2018, 17:13

Designing the T-31e with one 8 cell self defence Mk41 would not be unaffordable. Ideally space should be available for a second. The CMS being made ready for Sea Ceptor is probably a given as that will be fitted as soon as possible. ExLS will be cleared for Sea Ceptor by the time the latter is fitted to the T-31e in all probability, as the export potential of the combination is too tempting.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 02 Mar 2018, 20:23

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote: pay exactly the same as the US military would


Plus the FMS fee (is it still 2.5%?)
- exc. for partnering prgrms
- more often than not nothing is produced by those prgrms, though... so not a very good way to achieve "savings"


To my knowledge there is not a fixed fee.

But for a foreign military sale, the US government does a lot of work in setting up the contract (e.g. running a competition, selecting suppliers & negotiating prices) and monitoring the contracts successful completion. The USG basically acts as the customer on the customer's behalf. Work that the customer would have to otherwise do itself. Such work is charged to the FMS recipient. I would suggest that the US folk do the work at least as efficiently as any government so the charges passed on represent a savings.

Of course this doesn't support the narrative that the big bad ole USA rips of everyone. Sorry about that.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 02 Mar 2018, 20:28

Lord Jim wrote:As for ExLS, yes it does not need the Mk41


Incorrect.

Donald-san is right, ExLS is available stand alone. In fact that's the version that has been tested with CAMM.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 02 Mar 2018, 20:30

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:growth potential is built in with greatly reduced upgrade costs down the line compared to stand alone systems for similar weapon systems down the line and there is the space issue.


All good things in one short sentence... :thumbup:


Or you could just leave a Mk 41 sized hole in your ship and use it for something else (say a gym) until it's needed for the VLS.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 02 Mar 2018, 22:44

Lord Jim wrote:Designing the T-31e with one 8 cell self defence Mk41 would not be unaffordable. Ideally space should be available for a second. The CMS being made ready for Sea Ceptor is probably a given as that will be fitted as soon as possible. ExLS will be cleared for Sea Ceptor by the time the latter is fitted to the T-31e in all probability, as the export potential of the combination is too tempting.
I agree to your technical assesment. For the export version of T31e, with mk41 user can put ESSM, very good for export.

My point is, ExLS needs money, mk41 which is not needed for CAMM needs money, and T31 for RN lacks money.

Only if T26 adopted ExLS, and payed the initial introduction cost for it, it would have been possible. Able to carry 96 CAMM in half the size, ExLS on T26 will double the missile number and still free up large deck space, for many future growth options... And as you say, will be very nice for CAMM export. But T31 do not have such money.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 02 Mar 2018, 23:57

Just to aid in the discussion - a few titbits of information

ExLS appears to currently be certified for three "missiles"" - Nulka decoys, the Precision Attack Missile (NLOS-LS, which I think is still an active project) and RAM Block 2 - each uses a different "filler" within the outer canister (which fits into the Mk41). So decoys, surface attack and missile defence available "out-of-the-box"
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/launchers/ExLS%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

Presumably CAAMM will need it's own filler, so from the MDBA website
Lockheed Martin and MBDA announced in May 2013 a cooperative effort between the two companies to offer MBDA missile systems for use with the MK 41 and ExLS family of launchers. The system uses MBDA’s soft vertical launch technology to eject the CAMM from its canister and position the missile for main motor ignition.

It also seems to me that the Land-ceptor canisters look a lot like ExLS canisters, so perhaps a lot of that work has been completed.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Mar 2018, 13:51

I am confused, I was agreeing that you can use ExLS without the MK41 if you read my post.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 03 Mar 2018, 16:19

Lord Jim wrote:Why does the T-26 need 24 VL silos if it is not going to fire Sea Ceptor from them. Seems an awful lot for weapons systems we haven't even decided on?
I guess it is simply 16 land attack missile and 8 SSM. If TLAM is selected, then all 24 will be block4 anti-ship capable missile. If LRASM is selected, an option will be to use 24 LRASM also for land attack. Good flexibility. And, no need to use Mk 41 VLS for CAMM, no need, completely a waste of money.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Mar 2018, 18:02

16 TLAMs would be over double what the SSNs carry, do we have that many? with 24 cells you could carry 8 SSM, 8 ASROC and 32 Sea Ceptor, a respectable arsenal for the platform. In addition the Mk41 would allow the ER version to be used if the RN adopted it. The reason I am so pro the Mk41 is the inherent flexibility it gives the platform, and as has been already mentioned the hardware and software needed to use various weapon systems is becoming more and more simple to install as well as the cost coming down. WE are already buying he Mk41s so why not fully utilise them.

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Zealot » 03 Mar 2018, 18:13

It will be 16 ASROC maybe even 24, they wont have any other ASW weapon after all.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby benny14 » 03 Mar 2018, 18:21

Dependent on if we go with a deck or VLS launched anti-ship missile. We could have for example 8 LRASM, 8 ASROC and 8 TLAM, or any mix of. ASROC is not even negotiable to me, having an advanced anti-submarine frigate without the means to sink a submarine independently of its Merlin is crazy. Although there may be a situation of where the RN knows better than every other Navy who are putting torpedo launchers on all their new escorts.

As for acquiring new missiles. Getting a new ASM missile is urgently needed regardless, and LRASM looks better than the fantasy UK/French one in a decades time. The ASROC is needed for anti-submarine duties. I dont see us going with TLAM, because we have it on the submarines. If we fitted the type 45s for the BMD role, they could also carry these new missiles and so could the type 31 if we put MK-41s on them. It would be an incredible capability upgrade to our fleet.

Lord Jim wrote:16 TLAMs would be over double what the SSNs carry, do we have that many?

We dont have ship launch-able TLAMs, they are all for the submarines. I am not sure if we are able to convert them and if we have enough of them.

Caribbean wrote:It also seems to me that the Land-ceptor canisters look a lot like ExLS canisters, so perhaps a lot of that work has been completed.

I too suspect that, but we wont know until we get an announcement on it.

Zealot wrote:It will be 16 ASROC maybe even 24, they wont have any other ASW weapon after all.

Evidence?

Lord Jim wrote:Why does the T-26 need 24 VL silos if it is not going to fire Sea Ceptor from them. Seems an awful lot for weapons systems we haven't even decided on?

As stated above.

Side note, people need to stop forgetting that "[News Only]" in a thread title is not a suggestion.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Mar 2018, 22:35

This is the Fantasy thread isn't it?

Regarding ASROC most USN vessels carry 8 plus 4 reloads. As for TLAM, fitting it to the T-26 puts it into the same category as ASROC, LRASM and so on, basically all on the "Wish list".

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 03 Mar 2018, 23:18

Lord Jim wrote:This is the Fantasy thread isn't it?

Regarding ASROC most USN vessels carry 8 plus 4 reloads. As for TLAM, fitting it to the T-26 puts it into the same category as ASROC, LRASM and so on, basically all on the "Wish list".


You can reload ASROC at sea?

Well, it seems like we are paying a fair chunk of change to have 24 silos per ship, so they must have plans to put things in them. If it were just one missile type then why would they include so many - it would be easy to cut the numbers and save money if they are intending on leaving most of them empty most of the time...so there is some hope that we might end up with something useful in them.....


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests