Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
abc123 wrote: build 5-6 their Absalon class ships ( good enough for 76/127 mm, CAMM and Phalanx- because T31 will not get anything else.....
As the AAW capability isn't required for the T31, apart from travelling a higher top speed what does the A140 design actually add over the Absalon?

Looking at the RFI requirements the Absalon meets all the requirements as well. Should Team31 offer a updated Absalon design as a second option? Like the Iver Huitfeldt the design is in place with examples in the water.

The Absalon design is the cheaper version, if the A140 costs £250m (apparently) what could Team31 build 5 Absalons for?
The following info was from MikeKiloPapa...
MikeKiloPapa wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:What does the Iver Huitfeldt class offer that the Absalon class doesn't
A more efficient and quieter hull, stronger construction and full naval standards. Though the Absalon is still a much superior GP platform with unmatched flexibility and much better C&C capabilities.
A more efficient and quieter hull, stronger construction and full naval standards are all things that will score very well in the assessment against T31 requirements. Most of the extra things that Absalon has (double hanger, RoRo flexideck, etc) will not score anything in the RN assessment as they are not in the T31 requirements. After the value management phase, all the bidders will be well aware of this.

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Clive F »

Isn't "high" crew numbers going to count against it?

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
abc123 wrote: build 5-6 their Absalon class ships ( good enough for 76/127 mm, CAMM and Phalanx- because T31 will not get anything else.....
As the AAW capability isn't required for the T31, apart from travelling a higher top speed what does the A140 design actually add over the Absalon?

Looking at the RFI requirements the Absalon meets all the requirements as well. Should Team31 offer a updated Absalon design as a second option? Like the Iver Huitfeldt the design is in place with examples in the water.

The Absalon design is the cheaper version, if the A140 costs £250m (apparently) what could Team31 build 5 Absalons for?
Yes, I agree that building/offering Absalons would be better, IMHO.

On the other hand, I seriously doubt in capabilities of UK shipbuilding that they can build either of them ( even without weapons ) for 250 mil. of pounds per piece ( that's about 320 mil. USD ). But I hope that they can surprise me...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Aethulwulf wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
abc123 wrote: build 5-6 their Absalon class ships ( good enough for 76/127 mm, CAMM and Phalanx- because T31 will not get anything else.....
As the AAW capability isn't required for the T31, apart from travelling a higher top speed what does the A140 design actually add over the Absalon?

Looking at the RFI requirements the Absalon meets all the requirements as well. Should Team31 offer a updated Absalon design as a second option? Like the Iver Huitfeldt the design is in place with examples in the water.

The Absalon design is the cheaper version, if the A140 costs £250m (apparently) what could Team31 build 5 Absalons for?
The following info was from MikeKiloPapa...
MikeKiloPapa wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:What does the Iver Huitfeldt class offer that the Absalon class doesn't
A more efficient and quieter hull, stronger construction and full naval standards. Though the Absalon is still a much superior GP platform with unmatched flexibility and much better C&C capabilities.
A more efficient and quieter hull, stronger construction and full naval standards are all things that will score very well in the assessment against T31 requirements. Most of the extra things that Absalon has (double hanger, RoRo flexideck, etc) will not score anything in the RN assessment as they are not in the T31 requirements. After the value management phase, all the bidders will be well aware of this.
Considering that any of T31 designs will, by necessity of lack of money, be ( at best! ) a second-rate combat ship, the same as say Absalon, I really don't see so much value there ( bolded ).

On the other hand, maybe should the RN think more about these underlined things, because you can never have enough flexibility and support/amphibious capability.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I think it is fair to say that the RN and Babcock know that the Absalon class would make a better GP platform. However what they also know is that if 5 Absalon's come on line the 2 Albions would be sold off before the second hull hit the water. The IH offers 2 big things 1st NATO call them a frigate so HMG can call them frigates and 2nd they are no threat to be Albions

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:The IH offers 2 big things 1st NATO call them a frigate so HMG can call them frigates and 2nd they are no threat to be Albions
Quite right, Papa Cartwright... Do not expect most people to know who that (or Hoss etc) was :)

Take this, from TD:
LPD Albion Class 23.975
T45 Daring Class 14.764
RFA Auxiliary Oiler and Replenishment Ship (Fort Victoria) 14.325
LPH Ocean Class 12.345
RFA Solid Support Ship (Fort Austin) 11.776
T23 Duke Class 11.735
RFA Tanker (Wave Class) 9.183

RFA Primary Casualty Receiving Ship, and Aviation Training (Argus) 8.877
RFA Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary (Bay Class) 8.170
RFA Spt Tanker Leaf Class (Orangeleaf) 5.677

and that's £ mln for operating any of those, for a year.

So for starters, would you rather have one more T23 in the front line, or, in a year's time (when the Tides will have been kitted out), another Wave... that cannot be manned, anyway.... in the line up of 4 x Tide plus 1 x Wave (+plus 1 support tanker, of any description, that saves a third in the yearly cost - and does the job (different from a fleet tanker, but absolutely required)?

Keeping an Albion (one at a time)? Yes. Despite costing "an Ocean" plus "a Bay"... it does both (minus the helicopters, now from the carrier - which ever might be in turn).

If we could get a "flavour 7" conversion, just one or two, of the OMT-based design, spiced up by @Poiuytrewq... they would be very valuable as singletons and as part of the littoral ops group. Two ;) would make it both/ and as opposed to either/ or
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)

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Take this, from TD:
LPD Albion Class 23.975
T45 Daring Class 14.764
RFA Auxiliary Oiler and Replenishment Ship (Fort Victoria) 14.325
LPH Ocean Class 12.345
RFA Solid Support Ship (Fort Austin) 11.776
T23 Duke Class 11.735
RFA Tanker (Wave Class) 9.183

RFA Primary Casualty Receiving Ship, and Aviation Training (Argus) 8.877
RFA Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary (Bay Class) 8.170
RFA Spt Tanker Leaf Class (Orangeleaf) 5.677

and that's £ mln for operating any of those, for a year.
This number is surely not true. I don't know the detail, but I understand man-power salary not included, equipments maintenance not included (maintenance cost for SeaWolf/CAMM and other "complex" stuffs, GTs, sonars, CMS support, are all covered by independent contracts). May be just fuel and foods? In other words, it is clear banning Wave (and just adding £2.5M to £9.18M) will not save a T23.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Are the T-26 and T-31e the wrong way round when to comes to their roles within the RN. The T-26 was supposed to be a globe trotting highly flexible platform, able to operate independently but with good ASW capabilities. Yet the RN seem to be intending to use it as a specialised ASW vessel pure and simple. Wouldn't it make more sense to use the T-31e in the Globe trotting flexible platform role? Most of the designs studied have mission bays and space for IOSs and such like. They have aviation facilities and sufficient weaponry to deter low tier opposition. The Absalon would make a superb platform for this role, even able to operate as a base for operations by marines for small scale operations as well as HADR and so on.

The T-31e has come bout through bungling at all levels across the MoD and Government. There is an opportunity though to think outside the box in how they are used if the right platform were chosen. Fine it will not be a true warship, but if we think outside the box, these five ships could be very useful.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote:Are the T-26 and T-31e the wrong way round when to comes to their roles within the RN. The T-26 was supposed to be a globe trotting highly flexible platform, able to operate independently but with good ASW capabilities. Yet the RN seem to be intending to use it as a specialised ASW vessel pure and simple. Wouldn't it make more sense to use the T-31e in the Globe trotting flexible platform role? Most of the designs studied have mission bays and space for IOSs and such like. They have aviation facilities and sufficient weaponry to deter low tier opposition. The Absalon would make a superb platform for this role, even able to operate as a base for operations by marines for small scale operations as well as HADR and so on.

The T-31e has come bout through bungling at all levels across the MoD and Government. There is an opportunity though to think outside the box in how they are used if the right platform were chosen. Fine it will not be a true warship, but if we think outside the box, these five ships could be very useful.
Exactly. But only if they can offer more than River class on steroids.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Caribbean wrote: keeping all my digits crossed
Caribbean wrote: that we then move on to building the T45 replacement, possibly based on the same hull
:thumbup:
Like giving candy to a baby :-)
Is that to be read as (?)
- after half a decade of Poo-poo'ing that development path (as in: to dismiss an idea or suggestion) in the discussions we have had on various forums
- you use a quick phrase to slip into the opposite camp... unnoticed?

You are welcome :D , regardless

I am sure it will be good (and welcome) business for BAE, too... indeed, their game plan all along ;)
Not at all. I still think it's an absurd idea. But I do admire your perseverance.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:CL/BAES Leander design also meets the T31e RFI requirements perfectly. It is very important to have 2 strong proposals.

I think both design has risks:

A140:
- will it fit in 1.25B GBP cost? On the "fixed price final design", what equipments and hull standards will they be?
- completely non-British design, and mostly non-British equipments, is it OK? IP issue? Politically negative?
- bean-counter may tempted to replace ~750M GBP T26 with ~250M GBP T31e.

Leander:
- will it fit in 1.25B GBP cost? On the "fixed price final design", what equipments and hull standards will they be?
- being BAES design is politically negative?
- little growth margin remains.

Both had historical difficulty in export. Timeline is the same, start of build of its prototype (IH-class and Khareef-class) at ~2007, commissioning ~2011. Both were proposed for export, but IH was not successful, and Khareef has no follow on for a decade.

Two design are very different in export field, A140 is a large frigate with reduced standard (compared to T26 or FREMM), Leander is the larger sister of heavy corvettes. Former will be attractive for Chili, NZ and ... maybe UAE, Saudi ... (license build proposal can be foreseen more (but if so, why not directly to OMT?), but UK-build is not many), latter has many many candidates for selling, but we all know there are strong competitors there. Anyway, diplomacy and politics will be very important; we need to fight against French powerful selling, even proposing national debt from France to buy French weapons. Politics, it is.
Excellent summary. I would only add that running costs have to be a key criteria. In particular, manning.

The IH in service were not able to keep their crew below 100. I've seen 120 and above mentioned which puts it into Type 26 category, does it not? That's bad news if true.

I do not know Leander manning levels. Maybe they are in the same position, I do not know.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

would they be able to drop a few crew for it not being a AAW platform only a GP platform

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Team 31 state in their brochure...
The platform will operate in all states and conditions with a Ship’s Company of less than 100 personnel. With dedicated accommodation for 160+ personnel and additional temporary accommodation, the platform can carry a significant number of Embarked Military Force, including Special Forces, littoral manoeuvre troops or additional command and control personnel.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Yet the RN seem to be intending to use it as a specialised ASW vessel pure and simple.
On the contrary. The RN have stated the T26 will be used as originally specified. Nothing has changed. In particular, the carriers were a known entity when the T26 spec was finalized.

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:Team 31 state in their brochure...
The platform will operate in all states and conditions with a Ship’s Company of less than 100 personnel. With dedicated accommodation for 160+ personnel and additional temporary accommodation, the platform can carry a significant number of Embarked Military Force, including Special Forces, littoral manoeuvre troops or additional command and control personnel.
I am aware of that. OMT also said the same thing to the Danish Navy before the IH entered service: less than 100. However in practice, the number proved to be insufficient.

And of course it's a brochure so which configuration of the A140 were they talking about?

It's not a unique problem, to my knowledge the USN LCS and the French FREMM suffered exactly the same problem i.e. the ship designers were too optimistic on manning levels.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:would they be able to drop a few crew for it not being a AAW platform only a GP platform
Quite possibly but the RN Type 31 will also have a few systems not in the IH which would push numbers back up.

One thing that does increase manning is the number and size of diesel powerplants. Naval architects often use the number of installed diesel cylinders as a way to calculate maintenance needs. GT's are not so maintenance heavy.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:CL/BAES Leander design also meets the T31e RFI requirements perfectly. It is very important to have 2 strong proposals.

I think both design has risks:

A140:
- will it fit in 1.25B GBP cost? On the "fixed price final design", what equipments and hull standards will they be?
- completely non-British design, and mostly non-British equipments, is it OK? IP issue? Politically negative?
- bean-counter may tempted to replace ~750M GBP T26 with ~250M GBP T31e.

Leander:
- will it fit in 1.25B GBP cost? On the "fixed price final design", what equipments and hull standards will they be?
- being BAES design is politically negative?
- little growth margin remains.

Both had historical difficulty in export. Timeline is the same, start of build of its prototype (IH-class and Khareef-class) at ~2007, commissioning ~2011. Both were proposed for export, but IH was not successful, and Khareef has no follow on for a decade.

Two design are very different in export field, A140 is a large frigate with reduced standard (compared to T26 or FREMM), Leander is the larger sister of heavy corvettes. Former will be attractive for Chili, NZ and ... maybe UAE, Saudi ... (license build proposal can be foreseen more (but if so, why not directly to OMT?), but UK-build is not many), latter has many many candidates for selling, but we all know there are strong competitors there. Anyway, diplomacy and politics will be very important; we need to fight against French powerful selling, even proposing national debt from France to buy French weapons. Politics, it is.
Excellent summary. I would only add that running costs have to be a key criteria. In particular, manning.

The IH in service were not able to keep their crew below 100. I've seen 120 and above mentioned which puts it into Type 26 category, does it not? That's bad news if true.

I do not know Leander manning levels. Maybe they are in the same position, I do not know.
Thanking about it while walking the dog, one major advantage of the A140 is it's potential for future growth/change. Not necessariliy in size but in role/capability. I don't think any but the most ardent Leander supporter would claim that their design has much left.

I suspect, with absolutely nothing to back it, that the two teams took very different approaches to the competition.

I think the Leander team was very very, focused on the 250 million. From the get go, I think they realised that was not doable with a new design so existing or modified designs would be the only way to go.

I think Babcock's, on the other hand, like most of us on this board, were looking at the technical requirements and how best to achieve them. Hence Arrowhead 1 and Venator.

I think the value management phase has proved that Bae/CL was correct. But now we have a fresh start and I think Babcock's will also be very focused on price to perhaps, the exclusion of most else. We shall see. Maybe it will come down to which consortium is willing to take the biggest financial risk as I have mentioned before. Boring for us technical groupies but more real world.

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: focused on the 250 million. From the get go, I think they realised that was not doable with a new design so existing or modified designs would be the only way to go.
Ron5 wrote: now [we have a fresh start and I think] Babcock's will also be very focused on price to perhaps, the exclusion of most else
Yes, that is how the process was designed: This time around, Thou Shall Not Waste two hulls' worth of money on
.... trying to reinvent the wheel

I do not have a Biblical Quote for seeing the light (there must be quite a few available, though)
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I think the "Growth" potential of the A140 is going to be a serious factor in the completion. Whist the RN has accepted, at least in public, that 13 T-26 was unaffordable and that the T-31e was the only way to maintain the fleet, many are going to have one eye on what can be done to add capabilities to the T-31e through it career as and when possible. It also looks like a full fat escort which is not a bad thing. In addition if the RN chooses the A140, it will probably become far more attractive to other navies, who will be able to see the same basic design with differing capabilities. Countries that until now have only thought about being able to afford Corvettes will look at the 140 and think they may have other options.

The big issue is that as it stands the A140 really only pays lip service to the National Ship Building Strategy, but the fact that a foreign warship design could be chosen for the RN and built in a UK yard is something many would have thought was a non starter 12-18 months ago. The aim of the NSS was to increase the capacity and completion for RN warships. Its other and more inportant aim was to provide sufficent work to maintain exisitng capacity and expertise. The most important objective shoul dbe thought, to give the RN the most efffective platform affordable within the budget, that has room to grow. If the chosen design cannot grow than it is a dead end.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

we talk a lot about future growth margins needed for the T31 but if the NSS is stuck to then these vessels will be sold off in 15 years.
Can anyone give a rough idea of what sort of growth margins they think will be needed for this short service life ?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Jake1992 wrote:Can anyone give a rough idea of what sort of growth margins they think will be needed for this short service life ?
Fair point - I can think of a few scenarios: Firstly, an individual ship may not be upgraded, but the requirements for the replacement might exploit that growth margin; Secondly, both we and any export customers may well, in reality, keep ships in service longer than the 12-15 years stated and third; when they are sold on as second hand, the export customer might exploit the growth margin (hopefully a UK yard will get the contract).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Caribbean wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Can anyone give a rough idea of what sort of growth margins they think will be needed for this short service life ?
Fair point - I can think of a few scenarios: Firstly, an individual ship may not be upgraded, but the requirements for the replacement might exploit that growth margin; Secondly, both we and any export customers may well, in reality, keep ships in service longer than the 12-15 years stated and third; when they are sold on as second hand, the export customer might exploit the growth margin (hopefully a UK yard will get the contract).
I completly agree with a larger ship as a better option and I can we'll see HMG keeping these longer than the 15 years ( just like with the T23s )

The question was mainly put out there because the tone of the conversations in regards to growth margins seems to automatically assuming the T31s will be kept for 30 years plus

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

The exact wording of Sir John Parker's recommendation that was accepted by the Government in the NSS was,
The Ministry of Defence should determine the economic service life for a naval ship and then replace ships with new ships at that point, rather than operate longer and thus avoid expensive major refits. As a pathfinder, Type 31e should also be procured as a Royal Navy asset that stimulates exports including via sales from the Fleet.
It does not recommend the service life should be 15 years. It just states that ships should not have their lives extended beyond their initial designed service life.

Keithdwat579
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 14 May 2018, 22:06
Niue

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Keithdwat579 »

Tempest414 wrote:I think it is fair to say that the RN and Babcock know that the Absalon class would make a better GP platform. However what they also know is that if 5 Absalon's come on line the 2 Albions would be sold off before the second hull hit the water. The IH offers 2 big things 1st NATO call them a frigate so HMG can call them frigates and 2nd they are no threat to be Albions

I was thinking the exact same thing. Look at the US Navy, the Wasp and America class Assault ships would, if in any other navy in the world, be considered fully fledged aircraft carriers, the reason why the navy doesnt call them this, and haven't put ski jumps on the front(there's plenty of room and would completely maximise flexibility) is because they think the politicians would then look at these and think why do we have these big expensive super carriers when we can have this and fraction of the price and operating costs, they would cut their coveted supercarriers.
The same goes for the Albions, the reason we shouldn't go for Absalon is because the government would look at these and say, if we can have a lot of these, with big fancy looking guns and stuff(from their perspective) then why do we need these massive expensive specialist ships that can only carry a couple of hovercrafts and a few speedboats, there's no need, right?
This is the scenario(although unlikely) that could happen if we go for a large amphibious focused T31, that's why I think Absalon would be a bad idea, besides the IH offers great flexibility across the board already, you shouldn't need anymore than what the IH offers, there's so much potential in the design for future batches and procurements.
Although dual hangar would be nice but doesn't fit the requirements for T31.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Jake1992 wrote:
Caribbean wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Can anyone give a rough idea of what sort of growth margins they think will be needed for this short service life ?
Fair point - I can think of a few scenarios: Firstly, an individual ship may not be upgraded, but the requirements for the replacement might exploit that growth margin; Secondly, both we and any export customers may well, in reality, keep ships in service longer than the 12-15 years stated and third; when they are sold on as second hand, the export customer might exploit the growth margin (hopefully a UK yard will get the contract).
I completly agree with a larger ship as a better option and I can we'll see HMG keeping these longer than the 15 years ( just like with the T23s )

The question was mainly put out there because the tone of the conversations in regards to growth margins seems to automatically assuming the T31s will be kept for 30 years plus
I wasn't talking about growth margins. I was talking about capability for the design to grow such that a batch 2 or 3 could be built with a lot different/enhanced set of capabilities while keeping a large degree of commonality with previous batches to keep down design costs and enabling equipment reuse.

Similar perhaps to the Ajax AFV or the Boxer APC, both can spawn new varieties very easily because they were design to do so up front. The Boxer in particular.

As for service life, surely we all know that the Treasury will insist on running them completely into the ground before considering a replacement. Service life will be 30+ years. The government has adopted the NSS. Doesn't mean the Treasury has to actually follow it. Good grief, this is the UK. The Chancellor gets to do whatever he or she wants.

Post Reply