Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

HMG because it makes the annual spend lower.

But increases the overall cost presumably?

May be. Because, by slowing down, you can decrease the labor number = cost, but of course building it faster is more efficient, I agree.

In other words, if T26 was designed to be more simple and low cost, they could have been more low cost. (I was alway claiming that T26 do not need mission bay AND 24 VLS. Having a mission bay OR 24-32 VLS must have been better), But, anyway it is too late.

[donald_of_tokyo]

What if RN accept "less than 19 escort" fleet, abandon T31 program and re-located (some of) the program cost to "boost" T26 build speed?

It may give us, not "1 more T26-full + a free OPV" but maybe "2 more T26-full"?

If true, RN may go with 16 escort fleet. I think this is NOT bad. Cutting 3 escorts means, just abandon 1 standing commitment. By gapping NATO fleet and/or APT-S (now already gapped), 16 escort fleet may do.

Stop dreaming, stop being optimistic, and be practical. Here practical means, "require LESS" to the fleet, such as abandoning APT-S. Of course, RN will send River B2 in place. It cannot replace an escort, but can do some of the tasks = "presence".

... still thinking which way is better ....

[Jake1992]

HMG because it makes the annual spend lower.

But increases the overall cost presumably?

May be. Because, by slowing down, you can decrease the labor number = cost, but of course building it faster is more efficient, I agree.

In other words, if T26 was designed to be more simple and low cost, they could have been more low cost. (I was alway claiming that T26 do not need mission bay AND 24 VLS. Having a mission bay OR 24-32 VLS must have been better), But, anyway it is too late.

Of course it's going to incease the over costs, we've seen this with both the QEs and the Astutes.
Political slow down of the build rate to keep year on year spending the same, this comes from the treasury wanting to make the yearly books look good but does not get the best value for the tax payers money.
It has been said in the defence select committee may times that the slow down in build cost the same as an 8th Astue ( £1.3bn I belive ) and the QE slow down add another £1bn that's over £2bn wasted that could of been better spent

[Poiuytrewq]

What if RN accept "less than 19 escort" fleet, abandon T31 program and re-located (some of) the program cost to "boost" T26 build speed?

It may give us, not "1 more T26-full + a free OPV" but maybe "2 more T26-full"?

If true, RN may go with 16 escort fleet. I think this is NOT bad. Cutting 3 escorts means, just abandon 1 standing commitment. By gapping NATO fleet and/or APT-S (now already gapped), 16 escort fleet may do.

... still thinking which way is better ....

What if HMG gave RN the appropriate amount of funding to build the right type of vessels in the required numbers at a sensible build rate. That would be my preferred option...

[Poiuytrewq]

Of course it's going to incease the over costs, we've seen this with both the QEs and the Astutes.
Political slow down of the build rate to keep year on year spending the same, this comes from the treasury wanting to make the yearly books look good but does not get the best value for the tax payers money.
It has been said in the defence select committee may times that the slow down in build cost the same as an 8th Astue ( £1.3bn I belive ) and the QE slow down add another £1bn that's over £2bn wasted that could of been better spent

Every SDSR talks non stop about efficiency savings which more often than not turn out to be unachievable. This is an obvious efficency that is clearly achievable and appears to be ignored programme after programme.

If the overall cost of the T26 project budget (£8bn) includes even a 10% inefficiency due to slowing down the build, that's another £800m for the T31 budget which would rise to just over £2bn.

It's does make you wonder what type of a Frigate the Babcock consortium could turn out for £400m a hull?

Might make BAE sweat a bit....

[Jake1992]

Of course it's going to incease the over costs, we've seen this with both the QEs and the Astutes.
Political slow down of the build rate to keep year on year spending the same, this comes from the treasury wanting to make the yearly books look good but does not get the best value for the tax payers money.
It has been said in the defence select committee may times that the slow down in build cost the same as an 8th Astue ( £1.3bn I belive ) and the QE slow down add another £1bn that's over £2bn wasted that could of been better spent

Every SDSR talks non stop about efficiency savings which more often than not turn out to be unachievable. This is an obvious efficency that is clearly achievable and appears to be ignored programme after programme.

If the overall cost of the T26 project budget (£8bn) includes even a 10% inefficiency due to slowing down the build, that's another £800m for the T31 budget which would rise to just over £2bn.

It's does make you wonder what type of a Frigate the Babcock consortium could turn out for £400m a hull?

Might make BAE sweat a bit....

The problem is these slow down in build times are put there by the treasury the level out year on year cost as that is how most department budgets work, but the dozzy f**kers in the treasurey don't seem to understand that the sand can't be applied to a 10 year build program ( or they just don't care )
With this in mind there is no one to over see the treasury on this so no one to put them in there place and say no this is not the best value, the blame just gets shifted to the mod and the treasury says wasn't us

They should be held accountable for such waste of public money

[Caribbean]

Building more slowly simply means that your fixed costs have to be spread over fewer hulls.

There are two ways of addressing that: either reduce your fixed costs OR; win more business and spread the fixed costs over more hulls.
Reducing fixed costs can be difficult, but is something that BAE (and the unions) need to grasp. You can change fixed costs by doing things like investing in more capable equipment, divesting yourself of unproductive assets, utilising existing assets more effectively (by changing work practices or training, for instance) - things like that.

HMG wants BAE Shipbuilding to behave like a proper business and do both. They get the T26 program to sort themselves out commercially and become competitive, the NSS says it pretty clearly. That cost (of sorting themselves out) will be borne by the taxpayer.

BAE is a very capable company technology-wise - it's everything else that it has to work on.

[Jake1992]

Building more slowly simply means that your fixed costs have to be spread over fewer hulls.

There are two ways of addressing that: either reduce your fixed costs OR; win more business and spread the fixed costs over more hulls.
Reducing fixed costs can be difficult, but is something that BAE (and the unions) need to grasp. You can change fixed costs by doing things like investing in more capable equipment, divesting yourself of unproductive assets, utilising existing assets more effectively (by changing work practices or training, for instance) - things like that.

HMG wants BAE Shipbuilding to behave like a proper business and do both. They get the T26 program to sort themselves out commercially and become competitive, the NSS says it pretty clearly. That cost (of sorting themselves out) will be borne by the taxpayer.

BAE is a very capable company technology-wise - it's everything else that it has to work on.

If that's the case then why did the defence select committee find that if the Astutes and the QE ms had been allowed to be built at the rate to which the builder could do instead of the political slow down the 2 programs would of cost around £2.3bn less than they have ended up costing

[Meriv9]

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.

Donald we went down from 5 years to 3 years and 10 months for our 7th ship plus our model should be higher end than the french one.

[serge750]

The T26 build time does seem shocking long, wasn't there going to be a frigate factory built that would of built them at one a year? but since the order was cut , no efficiency could be invested in, was this partly due to threat of scottish independence & the desire to have a back up plan ie build some ships in England if the worst was to occur.

[Caribbean]

If that's the case then why did the defence select committee find that if the Astutes and the QE ms had been allowed to be built at the rate to which the builder could do instead of the political slow down the 2 programs would of cost around £2.3bn less than they have ended up costing

The fixed costs issue is the major mechanism for WHY the slower build rate costs more.

I agree that the political shenanigans and flip-flopping over designs has added significant costs. These are separate from the slower build issue.

As to the "slower build rate" caused by financial constraints, the reality is that once you get beyond relatively trivial projects customers have always dictated what they will pay for and when they will make stage payments. There is a whole branch of the financial services industry dedicated to assisting companies in doing not only that, but guaranteeing that the stage payments will follow a set schedule, regardless of interest rate changes and foreign currency fluctuations, sometimes for 20-25 years into the future. Every customer has to manage its cash-flow. Any supplier company needs to adopt the appropriate business strategy to accommodate that reality.

If I can put it another way - there is a mismatch between the manufacturing capacity that BAE has to offer and the manufacturing capacity that HMG wants to buy. Is it up to HMG to pay for that excess capacity, or is it up to BAE to maximise utilisation of that capacity?

I'm sure that BAE were perfectly happy to let Government financial constraints take all the blame, because it distracted attention from their failure to do what every other company faced with a slowdown on manufacturing or under-utilised resources would and should do - drum up more business for existing products, reduce future fixed costs by rationalising, or innovate and bring new products to market. BAE Shipbuilding became too dependent on public funds and its monopoly position and stopped thinking like a commercial organisation.

[Ron5]

Yeah, Bae should be scouring the world for customers for their nuclear submarines & their 70k ton carriers. Must be dozens out there.

[Ron5]

As for investing more in their frigate shipyards, that really makes a lot of sense.

They have orders for 3 Type 26 and a vague commit to a follow on order, maybe, one day, we'll see.

Plus a National Strategy that says the order for Type 31's should go to any company but Bae.

Plus a government policy that says anything but frigates & destroyers will be built by the lowest international bidder

Bae must be champing at the bit to pour more money into UK shipbuilding. No lose proposition, right?

Truth is, any sucker is welcome to buy the frigate business from Bae. Please form an orderly line.

[Repulse]

What if RN accept "less than 19 escort" fleet, abandon T31 program and re-located (some of) the program cost to "boost" T26 build speed?

It may give us, not "1 more T26-full + a free OPV" but maybe "2 more T26-full"?

If true, RN may go with 16 escort fleet. I think this is NOT bad. Cutting 3 escorts means, just abandon 1 standing commitment. By gapping NATO fleet and/or APT-S (now already gapped), 16 escort fleet may do.

Stop dreaming, stop being optimistic, and be practical. Here practical means, "require LESS" to the fleet, such as abandoning APT-S. Of course, RN will send River B2 in place. It cannot replace an escort, but can do some of the tasks = "presence".

... still thinking which way is better ....

The T31 is purely driven by the Treasury as the price the RN needs to pay for having a full time CSG capability - with the promise of more “paper frigates” for the future. The PM likes it as she can mention it in the context of exports and more jobs.

Given the real and present danger from Russia, and increasingly hostile behaviour of China, I am in no doubt the RN would want more T26s even taking a cut overall in the number of FFs/DDs. I wonder if the T31 is also the RNs way of trying to dispel the fantasy £250mn frigate that has been around for ages.

There is a real need for hull numbers IMO, but this remains for me in the Global Sloop area (call them pimped OPVs if you want).

One way out of this is to build 5 cheaper T31s in the form of the RiverB2 +Hangar (a.k.a. Avenger) with a medium gun, CIWS on the hangar roof and FFBNW CAMM and fix to £150mn per hull max. That way the Treasury is happy, and so is the PM, as I believe these will actually sell.

The RN then gets a couple more T26s under the guise of addressing the increased threat and Global Britain.

Everyone is happy

[Poiuytrewq]

The T31 is purely driven by the Treasury as the price the RN needs to pay for having a full time CSG capability.....

With a budget the size of the T26 budget it should have been ample to renew the frigate fleet if properly managed. No point blaming the treasury, the money was made available. If done correctly the T26's could have been 12 to 14 world class frigates and they should be entering the water now.

One way out of this is to build 5 cheaper T31s in the form of the RiverB2 +Hangar (a.k.a. Avenger) with a medium gun, CIWS on the hangar roof and FFBNW CAMM and fix to £150mn per hull max. That way the Treasury is happy, and so is the PM, as I believe these will actually sell.

Its pointless arguing over the T26, it is what it is and I agree completely the important thing now is to get RN what it needs for the available funds. I think that's impossible within the current T31 budget, in my view the T31 programme simply needs more funds.

I think the choice is simple, find the funds to make the T31 into credible and useful Frigates or scrap the T31 programme and concentrate on the T26's and then build as many RB3's as is needed to fill the gaps.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The T26 build time does seem shocking long, wasn't there going to be a frigate factory built that would of built them at one a year? but since the order was cut , no efficiency could be invested in, was this partly due to threat of scottish independence & the desire to have a back up plan ie build some ships in England if the worst was to occur.

A lot of truth in that, but BAE have also wisened up and the truth is that the lego ship armada is going to sail in... right into the arms of the BAE military fitting out facilities. So they capture the higher value add part of the business, while a mirage of competition (in hulls) will protect its de facto monopoly position

[Ron5]

The T26 build time does seem shocking long, wasn't there going to be a frigate factory built that would of built them at one a year? but since the order was cut , no efficiency could be invested in, was this partly due to threat of scottish independence & the desire to have a back up plan ie build some ships in England if the worst was to occur.

A lot of truth in that, but BAE have also wisened up and the truth is that the lego ship armada is going to sail in... right into the arms of the BAE military fitting out facilities. So they capture the higher value add part of the business, while a mirage of competition (in hulls) will protect its de facto monopoly position

What makes you think that? CL says the ships will be completed on the Mersey and Babcocks says Rosyth.

Mind you, if Bae get the combat system they'll be pretty happy.

Of course that's the system that Bae and the RN have been working in partnership for decades to get tailored perfectly for the RN's needs. So undoubtedly, the politicians will pick the French system. C'est la vie. Cheaper innit mate?

[Ron5]

The T26 build time does seem shocking long, wasn't there going to be a frigate factory built that would of built them at one a year?

That was the Bae proposal i.e. place a contract for all 8 and they'll be delivered earlier and save at least half a billion.

But the Treasury didn't want them built quicker. Or cheaper.

Osborne was telling the world that he wanted one frigate/destroyer built every two years. Those gifted mathematicians among us can figure out that leads to a RN escort fleet of between 12 and 15.

That means good old Geo wasn't going to back Cameron's promise to the Scots of 15 frigates built on the Clyde. Of course, as soon as Scottish referendum was won, Cameron's merry lads changed that to 8 on the Clyde and a promise of being able to compete for 5 more. Which was changed again to: if other yards can build Type 26 blocks cheaper, you can assemble 8 on the Clyde and the Type 31's will be built anywhere BUT the Clyde.

God only knows what the promise will morph into by the time the second Type 26 contract is ready to be awarded. WIth this bunch of charlatans it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear the the Type 31 has proven to be such a success, the Type 26 program will be terminated at 3 ships.

[Repulse]

Poiuytrewq, “With a budget the size of the T26 budget it should have been ample to renew the frigate fleet if properly managed. No point blaming the treasury, the money was made available. If done correctly the T26's could have been 12 to 14 world class frigates and they should be entering the water now.”

The factors are more complex than just party being at sole fault I agree. However, regardless of how we got to the T26 design and price point, what compounds the problem significantly is the payment profile which is ultimately controlled by the Treasury. If the Treasury is ongoing to fund half a frigate a year that is what you get and all the BAE fixed costs get added to that. No-one outside a close circle in the MOD/BAE can know for sure how much, but increasingly the payment profile will reduce the unit cost. Another £500mn could give another T26 over the same build period.

[shark bait]

But increases the overall cost presumably?

Correct, something like 150m per annum for a 5 years build, 100m per annum for a 10 year build. (totally made up figures). Long term the MOD looses out.

[ArmChairCivvy]

CL says the ships will be completed on the Mersey and Babcocks says Rosyth.

Ships will be completed... build vs. fitting out? Have they been specific about that aspect?

That was the Bae proposal i.e. place a contract for all 8 and they'll be delivered earlier and save at least half a billion.

I have sympathy for the managers/ project leads at BAE, when the simplest solution "does not sell" with the customer, and instead all kinds of acrobatics are then entered into

Those gifted mathematicians among us can figure out that leads to a RN escort fleet of between 12 and 15.

Tomorrow morning's R4 News quiz, pre-released here:
- as that one in two years has now been revised to 1+1 in every three years, how much does the end result (12-15) go up by?

. Long term the MOD looses out.

- no doubt about it; a repeat of the Astutes story
- for the carriers, RAND was commissioned to prove that 37% concurrency in build would produce the cheapest unit price
- something of the kind was (despite the overall prgrm delay?) achieved - for a batch of 2!
It is a no-brainer that for a longer batch it is easier to work towards that "optimum"

[dmereifield]

God only knows what the promise will morph into by the time the second Type 26 contract is ready to be awarded. WIth this bunch of charlatans it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear the the Type 31 has proven to be such a success, the Type 26 program will be terminated at 3 ships.

This is a genuine concern for me also. However, there are several factors that complicate this.

1) the vow to build 13 FF in Scotland can still semi-reasonably be claimed to have been honoured with 8 T26 and 5 B2 rivers. So dropping T26 numbers makes this a bit awkward, though the relevance and importance of the vow is seemingly decreasing so it may not be considered an important consideration in 5-10 years time.

2) there presumably is a need to keep BAE/the Clyde busy until the T45 replacement in ca. 2039. I believe the slow pace of build for the T26 class is partly to stretch out the order to keep the shipyard busy until work starts on the T45 replacement.

3) with a drop to only 3 T26 we would require the T31 (at least a subclass of 5 hulls) to be a first rate ASW. The T31 hull design would therefore need to have this capacity available from the start.

4) it seems unbalanced to have ships of the class named after cities of 3 home nations, but not the 4th and largest.

Given the above it seems unlikely (though not impossible) that the remaining 5 T26 would be cancelled and replaced by more T31s. I think it more likely a reduced second batch to say 2 or 3 hulls, and then an additional batch of ASW T31.

It would seem more likely to occur if the CL/BAE T31 Leander is selected

[ArmChairCivvy]

2) there presumably is a need to keep BAE/the Clyde busy until the T45 replacement in ca. 2039. I believe the slow pace of build for the T26 class is partly to stretch out the order to keep the shipyard busy until work starts on the T45 replacement.

A weighty argument (every Greek tragedy has deux ex machina in it... and this might be the part in ours that is not so easily visible)
... which nicely takes me back to my hobby horse: the primary driver for the size growth of the T-26 hull is/ has been?

[Jake1992]

God only knows what the promise will morph into by the time the second Type 26 contract is ready to be awarded. WIth this bunch of charlatans it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear the the Type 31 has proven to be such a success, the Type 26 program will be terminated at 3 ships.

2) there presumably is a need to keep BAE/the Clyde busy until the T45 replacement in ca. 2039. I believe the slow pace of build for the T26 class is partly to stretch out the order to keep the shipyard busy until work starts on the T45 replacement.

The potential lunacy of this approach though is that the MOD could end up paying out the same as they would if they just ordered more ships but end up with less, we saw this with the Astutes where by slowing down the build to stretch it out till the Dreadnoroughts were ready cost the same as building 8 but only ended up with 7.

It's has more to do with the treasuries year on year books than just stretching the build to fill a time gap, as anyone with any common sence would say " well if building 8 over 16 years odd is going to cost me the same as building 9 or 10 over the same period I'll build the 9 or 10 "
Unfortunately the treasury doesn't see it that way, they have 2 figures in there head that have to be met 19 frigate/destroyers and keeping the yearly books the same. Those 2 figures have to be met no more no less by any which way no matter the lunacy.

[Poiuytrewq]

The potential lunacy of this approach though is that the MOD could end up paying out the same as they would if they just ordered more ships but end up with less, we saw this with the Astutes where by slowing down the build to stretch it out till the Dreadnoroughts were ready cost the same as building 8 but only ended up with 7.

I agree it doesn't make sense.

Is it just a way to ensure the number of RN vessels doesn't exceed a certain level so that overall running costs can be keep down and therefore the 2%GDP is deemed to be enough?