Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Repulse]

I did say B1 to Clyde standard without flight deck

Sorry, mid-read the comment. Upgrading the gun, radar and CMS, may be possible, not sure on the immediate value for their taskings though.

[Tempest414]

as far as type 31 goes the program budget needs to be 2 billion the extra 750 million is not here or there for HMG but it would be a big step up for the type 31 program. With this budget and some changes to the brief for a 130 m ship built to a higher standard diong away with the mission bay and going with a flex deck and twin hangar capable of operating a Merlin and UAV's the navy would have a ship it could with

I think £400m is were the T31 should end up, it will be interesting to see if at some point RN requests that the current £250m budget is increased.

The question is at £400m each does the T31 make sense?

If the T31 budget increases to £2bn that would probably purchase 2 T26's @£1.5bn and 4 River Batch 3's @£500m with 57mm, hanger and embarked helicopter.

At the end of build £2bn may even just be enough to purchase 3 T26's.

Which would you rather have?

if I could get 3 type 26 at the end of the build for 2 billion I would have to take a long look at it. This said if I could get 5 proper ASW frigates or 5 proper GP frigates as above I would go for this option as a follow on order at the back end of that build could give me 10 frigates for 4 billion

[Caribbean]

at £400m each does the T31 make sense

At £400m each, that would be finely balanced decision. However, what if they are built to a range of specifications, so that we got (for example) two modestly-equipped patrol frigates at £250m each AND three proper GP frigates at £375m each for a total of £1625m (leaving enough in the budget for a fourth), would that be preferable to two, not-quite-three, T26. Or would that left-over money be sufficient to finance a new anti-ship missile for the RN?

[donald_of_tokyo]

T31e as a forward-based asset is an interesting idea.

The 1.25B GBP (including design cost, see RFI) means its units cost will be ~200M GBP or less = a typical heavy corvette (e.g. Romanian Sigma 10514; 1.6B Euro (1.4B GBP) for 4 hulls, locally built. Bulgarian Gowind200; $471=336M GBP for 2 hulls, 170M GBP per hull, imported).

Forward basing shall be coupled with "ship swapping". I propose "2 ships with 3 crew teams"; crews rotating between rest (at home), training (at hull-1 in Britain), deployed (at hull-2 forward). Ship can stay deployed for 2-3 years. Ship shall have sea-going days 1.5 times of typical frigate (180x1.5=270 days/yr = 90 days/yr at port). So, it shall be a relatively simple ship, but not as simple as River B2 (which can provide 320 days/yr = 45 days/yr at port).

I think a "heavy corvette like" equipments may work; it is relatively simple, and it meats the enemy level (in both Persian Gulf and South Atlantic), which means they can provide non-negligible contribution. It can have shorter range/endurance, because of forward basing, say 4500nm/28 days, making them "only a little larger" than typical heavy corvette = can be build cheap and at lower risk (because there are many good templates).

In this context, I am happy to cut the total hull down to 4 unit, which will enable the unit cost to be 25% more, i.e. ~250M GBP;
- Team-1 (2 hull 3 crews) provides 270 days/yr sea-going days in the Persian gulf (Kipion)
- Team-2 (2 hull 3 crews) provides 270 days/yr APT-S (or "2 hull 2 crews" to provide 180 days/yr, if RN can only provide 5 crew teams in total).

[EDIT] I do not here expect increase in T31e program budget. Without cutting significant number of F35Bs (for example), it may not happen. (OR, reduce the T26 number.)

[Ron5]

Type 31 is picking an already designed ship and then sticking some of our own gear on it.

I agree with you that the best chance for the RN to get something of value is that an existing design is modified to become the Type 31.

Unfortunately, both the Babcocks Arrowhead and BMT Venator designs are clean sheet.

[Ron5]

I've had to let him go.

With a good horse whipping I hope.

[Ron5]

I have a concern about the Type 31 programme, which may be unfounded, but I’m hoping someone more knowledgeable than me can correct me if i’m wrong.

One of the principal costs of a warship is its crew, hence the drive towards ever increasing levels of automation on Royal Navy ships, as evidenced by the lean manning of the QE Class carriers and the new highly automated magazine on the Type 26 frigates. This automation while lowering the running cost of a vessel across its lifetime has the downside of raising the initial development and purchase costs. To achieve the competitive pricing required by the Type 31 contest presumably the ships will be simpler and feature less automation. What are the chances the core crew complement (expected to be 80-100) will end up being not too disimilar to a Type 26 (I’ve seen figures ranging from 118-157 quoted)?

Of course my worries maybe unfounded and baseless, but perhaps someone could correct me if I’m talking from my posterior. Thank you.

It is a very valid concern.

Smart Procurement when it was introduced was claimed to have a major advantage over previous methodologies because it was claimed that thru life costs would be king. If it could be shown that more investment upfront could led to major life time savings, that extra investment would be made.

It must have been true because all the major pronouncements at the time specifically mentioned this point: "Spend to Save".

Of course now we now that was complete rubbish. They did no such thing. Especially for the Type 31 program where the only financial goal is to build them cheap.

All the Treasury cares about is minimizing annual spending. The future can go hang.

[Repulse]

From the RN website the T31e is “Geared towards maritime security and defence engagement, the Type 31e will fulfill roles such as the Fleet Ready Escort duties in home waters, fixed tasks in the South Atlantic, Caribbean and the Gulf, and the UK’s NATO commitments in the Mediterranean.”

The FRE can be met by a combination of the UK based Rivers and T26s/T45s ramping up or training in the UK.

The Caribbean role could be covered by a River plus a RFA during Hurricane season.

To be credible to both the local states and the US / France, the Gulf escort needs to be either a first rate ASW or AAW ship to supplement the CBG escort group. It will also be heavily frequented by a CSG going forwards, so could be also counted as one of the CSG carrier group numbers.

The Mediterranean role could also be covered by a River (like the Echo class and B1 Rivers have been used), plus more frequent visits / extended exercises from ships taking up the Kipion (Gulf) role. One way of doing this is to assign say 5 escorts rotating in the Kipion role (allowing more time to transit the Med).

If a first rate escort was needed for APT(S), I’d say we’d assign 3 in rotation in peacetime and gap / replace with a River if the CSGs needed to get to war strength.

Assuming that the RFAs sail without escort in peacetime and the CSGs have 2 escorts (6 in rotation), then this would give the peacetime number of escorts as 14.

I’d like to have another escort ready in the North Atlantic (also covering TAPs), which would need another 2.

As such a fleet of 16 would be sufficient without a separate ARG. This would mean in “wartime”, gapping APT(S), which has been done on numerous occasions, and Kipion (which was down in 82).

2 more T26s, and forward based Rivers, much more important and practical than forward basing a new T31 class in my view,

[Poiuytrewq]

Unfortunately, both the Babcocks Arrowhead and BMT Venator designs are clean sheet.

No commonality whatsoever between Arrowhead and the Heritage Class Cutter?

It does say designed with Heritage on Babcocks website.

[serge750]

If the costs for the T31 are truly set in stone then realistically I think 5 x Avenger class ships (yuk) essentially stretched river class with a hanger is a contender built under licence from BAe

I would prefer even 4 x sparten class frigates or maybe 5 without missiles, initially with just a 76mm gun & CIWS then maybe transfer a few CAMM's at a later date or hopefully mk41 for any further batches for mission flexibility

[Ron5]

Unfortunately, both the Babcocks Arrowhead and BMT Venator designs are clean sheet.

No commonality whatsoever between Arrowhead and the Heritage Class Cutter?

It does say designed with Heritage on Babcocks website.

Commonality is one thing, modifying an existing design is another. For example, you could say that all 3 contending designs have many points in common.

Having said that, I don't know how much Arrowhead pulls thru from Heritage. I'm sure Babcocks would like to leave the impression that it's a lot.

[Ron5]

Bottom line is that a "proper" 6k ton frigate is going to cost about 600m and a 4k frigate about 400m.

Missed that when Ron wrote it, so thanks to MikeKiloPapa for referring to that point.

Am I correct in assuming, Ron, that you were referencing the $100k/ tonne metric for historical builds, so we are talking USD, not GBP there? So approx. £425m for a 6k frigate and £280m for a 4k frigate at current exchange rates.

I remember finding the same article that you quoted from, but don't seem to have a link to it. Do you recall the date that it was written, as it would be interesting to attempt an estimate of how much that has increased due to "defence inflation"

Yes I was referencing that article. It was published in Aviation Week hence US $'s. And written by Francis Tusa, who I think is British, the head of their London bureau. In 2016, two years ago. I think many old Aviation Week issues are available online. Not sure where tho and you may have to be an AW subscriber.

The figures were produced by analyzing European frigate & destroyer costs over the previous 20 years (after factoring inflation). Tantalizingly, Francis did not mention who did the analysis. I doubt if it was him personally but it could have been. He's been in that business for a long time.

My limited checking of the formula shows it to be reasonable but I wouldn't claim to have "proved" it. And the varying US/pound/euro exchange rates can make a big difference as you might imagine.

For my comment above, I assumed a "proper" frigate to enjoy Tusa's 25% surcharge for ASW. So the calculation would be: 6,000tons x $100,000 x 125% divided by 1.4. Then rounded up a bit to get to 2018 money. So 600m UK pounds.

Using the same standard of math(!), a Type 26 would cost 650-675 million UK pounds. And I think that's what they will turn out to average.

Won't stop the Treasury/UK media/folks here, from declaring they're the new one billion pound warship but then again, that's what they called the Type 45 and they were all wrong then too.

[Opinion3]

Nobody has used the thread's buzzword COMMONALITY for a while so I thought I would use it

T45 two WR-21 gas turbines (GTs) and two Wartsila 2MW diesel generators
T31
T26 one MT-30 gas turbine (GT) and four MTU diesel generators
Batch 2 Rivers 2 × MAN 16V28/33D diesel generators
QE two MT-30 gas turbines (GTs) and four Wärtsilä 38 diesel generators

I suppose the T31 will actually look like an overweight OPV then?

[ArmChairCivvy]

is a contender built under licence from BAe

See, how we are going the Danish way and ordering warships, for military fitting out only later... which will be 40-50% of the total price... and be done in the BAE fitting out yard; regardless where the hulls (with basics fitted) will be built/ assembled. Ohh, these lego ships

For my comment above, I assumed a "proper" frigate to enjoy Tusa's 25% surcharge for ASW. So the calculation would be: 6,000tons x $100,000 x 125% divided by 1.4. Then rounded up a bit to get to 2018 money. So 600m UK pounds.

Using the same standard of math(!), a Type 26 would cost 650-675 million UK pounds. And I think that's what they will turn out to average.

Won't stop the Treasury/UK media/folks here, from declaring they're the new one billion pound warship but then again, that's what they called the Type 45 and they were all wrong then too.

I would underwrite the math above (what's the Rsquared for it ), but at the same time we should keep it clear when we are quoting Prgm cost divided by number of units vs. unit production costs... a big difference (most of the time; less so with these lego ships?)

[shark bait]

Having said that, I don't know how much Arrowhead pulls thru from Heritage. I'm sure Babcocks would like to leave the impression that it's a lot.

The Heritage class, is a Vard design engineered by Babcock, so is the Irish OPV which Babcock also built.

When asked if Arrowhead was a Vard design Babcock said it was an in house design, and it is larger than anything Vard are promoting, so it doesn't sound like its a lot.

[Ron5]

I would underwrite the math above (what's the Rsquared for it ), but at the same time we should keep it clear when we are quoting Prgm cost divided by number of units vs. unit production costs... a big difference (most of the time; less so with these lego ships?)

I got really annoyed (irrational I know) when politicians and Treasury alike said no more Type 45's could be built because at a billion each, they were unaffordable.

The then twit Minister for defense procurement du jour, went to the US and proclaimed the Type 45's were the most expensive warship ever.

The billion was just a flat out lie. A third of the billion was just a pro-rated apportionment of the development costs. In reality, additional ships would have cost 650 million or so to build. A far more reasonable figure and one that compares with European and US equivalents.

I have to wonder, in briefings to the ministers, which figure was used. I'll bet a large sum that the Treasury used the billion figure to justify cancelling.

[Opinion3]

Ron, the marginal cost of an extra T45 would have been less than figure you quote because the Toba/Rivers was arguably an unnecessary sunk cost.

[abc123]

I would underwrite the math above (what's the Rsquared for it ), but at the same time we should keep it clear when we are quoting Prgm cost divided by number of units vs. unit production costs... a big difference (most of the time; less so with these lego ships?)

I got really annoyed (irrational I know) when politicians and Treasury alike said no more Type 45's could be built because at a billion each, they were unaffordable.

The then twit Minister for defense procurement du jour, went to the US and proclaimed the Type 45's were the most expensive warship ever.

The billion was just a flat out lie. A third of the billion was just a pro-rated apportionment of the development costs. In reality, additional ships would have cost 650 million or so to build. A far more reasonable figure and one that compares with European and US equivalents.

I have to wonder, in briefings to the ministers, which figure was used. I'll bet a large sum that the Treasury used the billion figure to justify cancelling.

I wonder, if we add to them Harpoons/ASMs, 5-in gun, 12-16 ( as much as can fit there ) Mk41 VLS, say 10 TLAMs and 10 ASROCs, torpedo launchers with dozen torpedos, towed sonar array- to bring them in line with Burkes, what would be the price then?

[NickC]

From Type 26 thread
@GutoAberconwy confirms the 1st Type 26, HMS Glasgow is due to be accepted from builders summer 2025. She will not be fully operational until 2027.

Donald-san
"Technology is training and experience. New first-of-class ship taking 7 years to build is long, but not surprisingly long. Also, 1st hull of T26 commissioning 2027 is "enough", because the first T23ASW HMS Westminster is planned to decommission in 2028." 

For comparison Iver Huitfeldt keel laid down June 2008, launched March 2010, commissioned January 2011, total 2 years and 8 months.

The length of 7 years in build will be costing tens of £M's in shipyard overheads so contributing Type 26 ~£1B cost.

[Gabriele]

To put things in perspective, the lenght of build for the Type 26 matches that for HMS Queen Elizabeth and exceeds that for HMS Daring.

In my opinion it is indefensible, plain and simple.

[RetroSicotte]

One has to wonder just why it's this slow. Even HMS Daring went from first steel cut to commission in 6 years.

It's about the same time as an Astute class submarine takes, or an aircraft carrier.

[Poiuytrewq]

The length of 7 years in build will be costing tens of £M's in shipyard overheads so contributing Type 26 ~£1B cost.

So who is slowing them down?

Is it BAE or HMG?

[shark bait]

HMG because it makes the annual spend lower.

[Poiuytrewq]

HMG because it makes the annual spend lower.

But increases the overall cost presumably?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Not clear.
- Danish ship is build basically on commercial standard, with some enhancements. T26 is not.
And, anyhow, I am not saying 7 years is good. French FREMM is taking 5 year from laid-down to commission. T26 is "planned" to take 10 years. Not good. I guess it is just reflecting the annual cost saving, to build it slow. By building it slow, the yard can decrease the number of labor, I guess. Simply, not doing many things on parallel. I also think time they need to build the 1st ship is not important, but the 3rd ship onwards is important.
- On the other hand, T31e could and should be built in similar way to the Danish vessels, and I hope their build speed being fast. But, how the design it shall take time, and I think the start of build program can be delayed, while the build speed itself can be fast.