Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Ron5 wrote:
In the US, McCain would tear them to shreds if he was ever offered the same kind of rubbish.
Yep.

Great respect for senator McCain. :thumbup:
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…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

Ron5 wrote:Don't forget the nukes come out of that too
The life extension for the missiles is £250m. I would not imagine the nukes are more than £500m.
Caribbean wrote:I think they said it was "only" £11.2b
What was the statement they made, I cant find it anywhere.

Puts on tin foil hat for this part* Just messing with the numbers here.

Type 26 1-3 ship contract is £3.7bn ÷ 3 = £1.23bn per ship

Although incorrect, if £11.2bn was the cost it would mean roughly £876m per ship. Easily up to £1.23bn per ship if 5 ships were canceled, seeing the Type 45 cost increases.

£11.2bn divided by £1.23bn gets you 9.10. That is roughly 8 Type 26s at £1.23bn each and then £1.25bn for 5 Type 31s at £250m each, with £100m spare.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

benny14 wrote: The life extension for the missiles is £250m. I would not imagine the nukes are more than £500m.
I did quote this on another thread (ukdefencejournal, 7 mths back):

"It’s expected that just the submarines and their infrastructure will cost an immediate £15 billion to build. This can be broken down as such:

£0.25 billion to participate in the Trident D5 missile life extension programme. [ change the rocket fuel/ engines?]
£11 billion for a class of four new submarines.
£2 billion for possible refurbishing of the warheads.
£2–3 billion for infrastructure."

And then, of course, the big "massaging" of the numbers has been on the missiles: life extension -whaddever - but the next-gen will be past 2040... so our ten year plan will take a decade+ to even get that onto the radar.
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

benny14 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Don't forget the nukes come out of that too
The life extension for the missiles is £250m. I would not imagine the nukes are more than £500m.
Caribbean wrote:I think they said it was "only" £11.2b
What was the statement they made, I cant find it anywhere.

Puts on tin foil hat for this part* Just messing with the numbers here.

Type 26 1-3 ship contract is £3.7bn ÷ 3 = £1.23bn per ship

Although incorrect, if £11.2bn was the cost it would mean roughly £876m per ship. Easily up to £1.23bn per ship if 5 ships were canceled, seeing the Type 45 cost increases.

£11.2bn divided by £1.23bn gets you 9.10. That is roughly 8 Type 26s at £1.23bn each and then £1.25bn for 5 Type 31s at £250m each, with £100m spare.
Your missing the parts of the Type 26 budget for research, design, land facilities, training, service, support, spare parts etc etc. Loads of stuff not connected with actually building the ships.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Ron5 wrote:
benny14 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Don't forget the nukes come out of that too
The life extension for the missiles is £250m. I would not imagine the nukes are more than £500m.
Caribbean wrote:I think they said it was "only" £11.2b
What was the statement they made, I cant find it anywhere.

Puts on tin foil hat for this part* Just messing with the numbers here.

Type 26 1-3 ship contract is £3.7bn ÷ 3 = £1.23bn per ship

Although incorrect, if £11.2bn was the cost it would mean roughly £876m per ship. Easily up to £1.23bn per ship if 5 ships were canceled, seeing the Type 45 cost increases.

£11.2bn divided by £1.23bn gets you 9.10. That is roughly 8 Type 26s at £1.23bn each and then £1.25bn for 5 Type 31s at £250m each, with £100m spare.
Your missing the parts of the Type 26 budget for research, design, land facilities, training, service, support, spare parts etc etc. Loads of stuff not connected with actually building the ships.
I was under the impression from what iv read around that allow that plus 3 sets of TAS and 3 artisans ( as these cant be taken from T23s with early decommissioning ) were part of this initial £3.7bn

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

You may be correct. I've not seen a break down of the contract that gives that detail.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

benny14 wrote:With Glasgow been delivered in 2026, you really expect that they will not have ordered an additional batch at the minimum, if not all of them?
Order does not mean pay for. We know the treasury like to dilute the cost over as many years as they can.
@LandSharkUK

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

benny14 wrote:Although incorrect, if £11.2bn was the cost it would mean roughly £876m per ship
That looks like a familiar figure - most were calculating somewhere around that on here and other boards - approx. £880m each.
IIRC, though, some of the money was later clawed back in "efficiency savings" (around £750m, I think) and presumably the River B2s also came out of that pot (so £348m for the first three - can't remember what the second two cost - £230m??). If that's correct, then the budget lost £1.2 - 1.3b before the T26 build even got started.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The 5 B2 Rivers will cost 635 million including spares and support. With this in mind BAE / MOD / HMG knowing that TOBA was more and more likely should have had a better plan. I think BAE should of had a simpler version of Leander already in the box. A 110 meter Khareef heavy Corvette with a Merlin capable flight deck and hangar no mission bay and armed with a 57mm 24 CAMM and a Phalanx plus 6 points for GPMG's fitted with Artisan radar. I feel we could have got 3 for the 635 million and the build could of been over any time line that suited BAE until the type 26 started. this would have allowed the 9.25 billion to be sent on 10 type 26

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Thanks - so around £1.85b lost out of the budget before it really got started!
Agree with you on the "simple Leander" idea - three "heavy OPVs" would have complemented the existing Rivers for the Caribbean, Med and APT(S). Possibly built to higher standards than the B2s. No need for major weapons in normal usage, so they could be lean-manned, but FTR and with sufficient accommodation to take on crew to handle, defensive systems (decoys/Phalanx/ maybe CAMM), should it be required.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

When we look at a war fighting role if these 3 heavy Corvettes had been built and armed as I would have liked. They could of carried out a close carrier escort role using a mix of their 57mm - Phalanx and CAMM to mop up anything that might get passed the Type 45's

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

RN working closely with our possible Type 31 at Baltops this last week.

Image
Image

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:A 110 meter Khareef heavy Corvette with a Merlin capable flight deck and hangar no mission bay
Where would you add the 11m if not in a central mission bay? Just trying to picture it :think:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

good question for me it is about making it as simple as possible so after having a think about it. I think I would have gone for something like add 3 meter section to allow the hangar to be made bigger to take a Merlin and then add a 8 meter quarterdeck with a covered garage extending 8 meters under the flight deck. Fit a crane on the stern of the quarterdeck this would allow a 224 sqm working space

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:good question for me it is about making it as simple as possible so after having a think about it. I think I would have gone for something like add 3 meter section to allow the hangar to be made bigger to take a Merlin and then add a 8 meter quarterdeck with a covered garage extending 8 meters under the flight deck. Fit a crane on the stern of the quarterdeck this would allow a 224 sqm working space
Sounds a bit like my 111m alternative Avenger concept based on the standard River hull. Is this roughly similar but based on the Khareef hull?
image.jpg

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Yep something like that but as you say based on the Khareef design

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 »

Or like this?
If you compare Rive B2 and Khareef, it is pretty much, 10 m extension amidship + 1 m higher deck in hull. Other all parameters are very similar. Then, if Khareef-heavy is to be used, another 5 m amidship for endurance, 5 m astern for Merlin capable flight deck and CAPTAS-2 FFBNW, and 3 m after the funnel to make the hangar Merlin capable.

Simple, it is. Not so much top heavy,
khaareef_H.png

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 »

Export hope on T31e, Leander and Arrowhead 140, which is higher?

I think it is very complicated.
- First of all, BOTH Khareef and IH-class designs were not much successful in the past. Considering the cost, armaments, and good shape of Arrowhead 140, I wonder why? Considering the many rivals in the market, Khareef promoting 3 is actually a surprise, and not more is just as expected.

- If Arrowhead 140 anyhow attracts export customers, why not the customer order it from OMT (build the hull in Baltic ship yards, and final fit out elsewhere)? There is little reason to order it from just a license built user (Babcock), which has no special technical merit other than "just built (or going to build) 5 hulls" to build it. If Babcock can adopt the detailed design of IH-class, why not these nations' own ship yard cannot? I think there is only a very thin line that, IH-class be exported and at the same time built in UK. Or, does the license agreement includes OMT's abandoning such case?

- Difficulty for export of Khareef family will remain. There are many customers to order them, but also many competitive rivals are there; it is sitting in the middle of the market. Clever designing and good promotion of the additional parts "modularity" will be very important. Many (if not all) customers will look for more armaments than 2 additional RHIB spaces, so up-arming options will be important. Why not write a "powerpoint concept", with 16-cells strike-length Mk.41 VLS amidship (but no RHIB space, no container space in place)?


If we just forget the export, just think 1.25B GBP for ~10 years is just a temporal work-share industry promotion and have nothing to do with "growing second escort-class builder within UK" (=throw away the heart of NSS and just accept it is just a political joke), I think Arrowhead 140 has a merit that they can share many of the maintenance workload with Danish navy within NATO. Not just 5 hull, but 8 hulls (or even 10 hulls, including Absalon-class).

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

An extended Khareef or B3 River with Merlin capable hangar and CAMM is absolutely the right balance which would allow it to operate EoS also. I actually think 5 of these could be be used and given reuse of kit and using mature designs we should be looking at £200mn per hull. The rest of the cash could be used on another T26 or bringing both Albions back into active service at the same time.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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:Or like this?
If you compare Rive B2 and Khareef, it is pretty much, 10 m extension amidship + 1 m higher deck in hull. Other all parameters are very similar. Then, if Khareef-heavy is to be used, another 5 m amidship for endurance, 5 m astern for Merlin capable flight deck and CAPTAS-2 FFBNW, and 3 m after the funnel to make the hangar Merlin capable.

Simple, it is. Not so much top heavy,
Couple things:

Pretty sure that's a 76mm gun. 57mm looks a lot different.

The reason ships are extended midships is because the ships hull cross section is constant there. Just cut and fill with the same cross section plug. No impact on sections fore and aft of the cut, minimal impact on hydrodynamics, simple construction for the constant section "plug". Extending the stern or bow, on the other hand, is very difficult. No simple cut and plug.

And thanks to Gabriele (Liger30), we have a Leander brochure that answers many of our questions:

https://www.scribd.com/document/3808778 ... ate-Design

I bet I know our first question: what's this 120m variant? Show us, show us :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Or like this?
If you compare Rive B2 and Khareef, it is pretty much, 10 m extension amidship + 1 m higher deck in hull. Other all parameters are very similar. Then, if Khareef-heavy is to be used, another 5 m amidship for endurance, 5 m astern for Merlin capable flight deck and CAPTAS-2 FFBNW, and 3 m after the funnel to make the hangar Merlin capable.

Simple, it is. Not so much top heavy,
khaareef_H.png
Many thanks donald this is what I had in mind the CAPTAS-2 might of been a bit of a push within the 210 million pound budget but the rest I think could have been done. I feel had 3 of these been built from the 635 million TOBA fund we might of got 10 Type 26's for the 9.25 billion and HMG could of put it hands up and said we had built 13 warships 10 top end Frigates and 3 heavy corvettes on the Clyde. I also feel these 2 types could have done well on export

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Repulse wrote:An extended Khareef or B3 River with Merlin capable hangar and CAMM is absolutely the right balance which would allow it to operate EoS also. I actually think 5 of these could be be used and given reuse of kit and using mature designs we should be looking at £200mn per hull. The rest of the cash could be used on another T26 or bringing both Albions back into active service at the same time.
What do you base your £200m estimate on? If the customer is willing to pay £250m per hull you're not going to get anyone to significantly undercut that. Not when the baseline unit cost is so low to begin with.

And “the rest of the cash” wouldn’t come close to buying another T26, even if the RN could crew it - which it couldn’t. Ditto an LPD.

Nope it's Arrowhead all day everyday. It's a frigate, Leander isn't. Leander is inferior in just about every way you can measure from the limited info we have. Except there's one big problem - Tacticos instead of Common CMS. So bring BAE into the Arrowhead partnership as CMS integrator and problem solved. Leander quietly gets dropped. It's not as if BAE are interested in building the blasted things anyway.

Everyone's happy except Cammell Laird (for who I'd have genuine sympathy) and the rabid "anyone but BAE" brigade.

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

Should we be that bothered about using a different CMS? Afterall the way you really conclude that BMW's idrive is better than Mercedes' comad is by actually living with it. If we make weapons that integrates with AEGIS, Tacticos and Bae's CMS will we not sell more?

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 »

Ron5 wrote:The reason ships are extended midships is because the ships hull cross section is constant there. Just cut and fill with the same cross section plug. No impact on sections fore and aft of the cut, minimal impact on hydrodynamics, simple construction for the constant section "plug". Extending the stern or bow, on the other hand, is very difficult. No simple cut and plug.
You are right, but with a little modification: extending astern is easy; French FREMM, USN Freedom-class both did it relatively easily. My plan is only adding 5+3m amidship, and 5 m astern. The former can be re-written as "8m hull extension, and 3 m shifting funnel forward". :D
And thanks to Gabriele (Liger30), we have a Leander brochure that answers many of our questions:
https://www.scribd.com/document/3808778 ... ate-Design
Yeha.

By the way, can someone explain the following, as shown as a specification for Leander?
<Classification and certification>
Lloyds Naval Ship Rules, ✠100A1, NS2 Frigate, SA1, AIR, ESA, RSA, LA, LAP, TA2, LMC, PSMRL, CCS, RAS(ABV)(NT), ELS, FIRE**, ESC**, LSAE**, CEPAC2, MD, SH, POL(I, IV, V, VI, AFS), ENV(A, BWT, OW,IHM, NOx-3, SOx, RS)
ANEP 77 Naval Ship Code
I bet I know our first question: what's this 120m variant? Show us, show us :D
Yes!
RichardIC wrote:Nope it's Arrowhead all day everyday. It's a frigate, Leander isn't. Leander is inferior in just about every way you can measure from the limited info we have. Except there's one big problem - Tacticos instead of Common CMS. So bring BAE into the Arrowhead partnership as CMS integrator and problem solved. Leander quietly gets dropped. It's not as if BAE are interested in building the blasted things anyway.

Everyone's happy except Cammell Laird (for who I'd have genuine sympathy) and the rabid "anyone but BAE" brigade.
I am not sure if "A140 is a frigate, Leander isn't". Both is NOT a frigate in RN standard, I guess (Danish navy calling it a frigate is not important. They call Thesis class large OPV as a frigate, as well).

On the other hand, CMS being TACTICOS is not a big problem, I think. Just select the cheapest solution. Remember T31e RFI has a page requiring the estimation of cost of introducing new assets. It will surely be evaluated = not overlooked.

I find four points Leander is "superior" to A140: (1) IP is British, (2) fuel efficient, (3) larger RHIB bay and (as you say) (4) CMS is common to other RN assets. :D
Please do not take me wrong. There are many points A140 is superior to Leander: speed, sea-keeping, growth margins, Merlin capable hangar, more CAMM, etc.. But I cannot list "better exportability" here (=my last comment). But, purely for RN (except export), Arrowhead 140 looks better, I agree. (even if it is not a frigate)
Opinion3 wrote:Should we be that bothered about using a different CMS? Afterall the way you really conclude that BMW's idrive is better than Mercedes' comad is by actually living with it. If we make weapons that integrates with AEGIS, Tacticos and Bae's CMS will we not sell more?
If Arrowhead 140 with TACTICOS is selected, the program will integrate CAMM, and possibly Artisan 3D into TACTICS (= payed from T31e program). As TACTICOS is the world leading (in export market) CMS, it is great leap for exporting Artisan 3D and CAMM. Here, I am not talking about ship export, I am talking about Artisan and CAMM export.

CAMM can be a world standard mid/short-range-SAM (with local-area air defense capability = good to escort ships), next to ESSM (ARH version is coming very soon), if UK properly push it NOW.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Shorter or longer...
https://www.damen.com/-/media/New-Corpo ... =352&w=352
and then tick the other bits you like... or wait a while for "your special" being designed and its integration impacts "being remedied". At a cost, naturally.
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)

Post Reply