Yep.Ron5 wrote:
In the US, McCain would tear them to shreds if he was ever offered the same kind of rubbish.
Great respect for senator McCain.
Yep.Ron5 wrote:
In the US, McCain would tear them to shreds if he was ever offered the same kind of rubbish.
The life extension for the missiles is £250m. I would not imagine the nukes are more than £500m.Ron5 wrote:Don't forget the nukes come out of that too
What was the statement they made, I cant find it anywhere.Caribbean wrote:I think they said it was "only" £11.2b
I did quote this on another thread (ukdefencejournal, 7 mths back):benny14 wrote: The life extension for the missiles is £250m. I would not imagine the nukes are more than £500m.
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.benny14 wrote:The life extension for the missiles is £250m. I would not imagine the nukes are more than £500m.Ron5 wrote:Don't forget the nukes come out of that too
What was the statement they made, I cant find it anywhere.Caribbean wrote:I think they said it was "only" £11.2b
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.
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 £3.7bnRon5 wrote: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.benny14 wrote:The life extension for the missiles is £250m. I would not imagine the nukes are more than £500m.Ron5 wrote:Don't forget the nukes come out of that too
What was the statement they made, I cant find it anywhere.Caribbean wrote:I think they said it was "only" £11.2b
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.
Order does not mean pay for. We know the treasury like to dilute the cost over as many years as they can.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?
That looks like a familiar figure - most were calculating somewhere around that on here and other boards - approx. £880m each.benny14 wrote:Although incorrect, if £11.2bn was the cost it would mean roughly £876m per ship
Where would you add the 11m if not in a central mission bay? Just trying to picture itTempest414 wrote:A 110 meter Khareef heavy Corvette with a Merlin capable flight deck and hangar no mission bay
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?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
Couple things: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,
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 exportdonald_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,
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.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.
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".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.
Yeha.And thanks to Gabriele (Liger30), we have a Leander brochure that answers many of our questions:
https://www.scribd.com/document/3808778 ... ate-Design
Yes!I bet I know our first question: what's this 120m variant? Show us, show us
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).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.
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.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?