LOL, the Type 056 a minor part of the Chinese arsenal, the DF-21/26 could sink the QE in less than an afternoon as RN no defence capabilityRon5 wrote:Smaller than a River, the QE with its F-35s could sink them all in an afternoon.
Please, use your eyes, ExLS does not increase the packing density which is already high by design on CAMM. Look at the Army's version for an obvious example.Lord Jim wrote:could easily be solved by using the much criticised ExLS.
How? its buying a box to put a box in, it's unnecessary for the RN's application.Lord Jim wrote:and pretty cost effective.
I'm pretty sure I've seen a picture of a big grey thing with a dragon painted on it, but maybe I'm mistaken.NickC wrote: the DF-21/26 could sink the QE in less than an afternoon as RN no defence capability
T45 might have something to say about that.NickC wrote:LOL, the Type 056 a minor part of the Chinese arsenal, the DF-21/26 could sink the QE in less than an afternoon as RN no defence capabilityRon5 wrote:Smaller than a River, the QE with its F-35s could sink them all in an afternoon.
against ballistic missiles, just getting silly.
Sorry Shark bait-san, even if I use all my eyes (= net-surfingshark bait wrote:Please, use your eyes, ExLS does not increase the packing density which is already high by design on CAMM. Look at the Army's version for an obvious example.Lord Jim wrote:could easily be solved by using the much criticised ExLS.
), I see no indication that LandCeptors's launcher is applied to naval use. Actually, I understand the tubes used in ExLS is the LandCeptors' tubes. In other words, at least MBDA and LM is thinking that they need a door for naval use of CAMM.ExLs is not a good option when you are trying to keep overall ship cost below 250 million. ExLs is very expensive. Nobody in any navy has bought it and ithas a complexity (opportunity to fail plus additional maintenance burden) that is totally unwelcome for a simple system like CAAM. It would be like buying a Swiss army penkife when you only ever intend to use one blade. Utterly pointless.Lord Jim wrote:You can at a push squeeze 3 x 3 cell ExLS into the space occupied by one 8 cell MK41. So instead of the 12 single Sea Ceptor launch cells shown it could have possible to have the launch capacity of up to 72! in the same area. ExLS is such a good option as it is designed for maritime use unlike the Land Ceptor launchers, occupies less space then these, in fact a Land Ceptor launcher would gain 50% extra rounds using a land based variant of ExLS. ExLS is also clear for use with Sea Ceptor both from the 3 cell stand alone and the 4 round insert for the Mk41. As also mentioned it has been cleared for use as a launcher for various decoys. We haver to move away form the "Mushrooms", simply developed as the cheapest way to use the Sea Wolf VL bays on the T-23. Yes we could develop and marinise the launchers used for Land Ceptor but why? ExLS is here and ready to go now.
I agree ExLS is not that expensive, but I also agree that the cost cannot be included in the "250M GBP per hull". It is really tight. I see zero possibility the 57/76 mm gun will have any guided round. I also expect no hull-mounted sonar, even ship torpedo-defense system might not be included in the "250M GBP per hull". On this regard, "12 CAMM" (even in mushrooms) is a great triumph, if done within the "250M GBP per hull" (I'm afraid, only 2-3 out of 5 hulls may get it).Lord Jim wrote:ExLS is not an overly expensive system and not overly complicated and in fact requires very little maintenance. It acts like a four round storage container you install in its mountings and plug it in then you are ready to go. No one has yet bought it because it is so new and most planned designs have got either the Mk41 or Sylver launchers already built into the design. It is up against ESSM as a self defence weapon for use in the Mk41 and we will have to see how things develop as Sea Ceptor requires far fewer on board system to support it then ESSM. New Zealand has taken the" Mushrooms" as it wanted the cheapest possible method of installing Sea Ceptor which is fine but they are ending up with only 12 rounds per ship, but that is better than only 8 Sea Sparrows..
Agreed. But, I think there is no hope for "more money for T31e".As for the £250M per ship, I think that is going to be a moot point as I am pretty sure the ongoing review is going to point out in one way or another.
I wonder how many systems can be used like Phalanx with a pool of kit held in a warehouse and just fitted when needed for a deployment. In other words, just 2 or 3 systems can be bought for a fleet of five ships thus lowering the average ship cost.donald_of_tokyo wrote:I agree ExLS is not that expensive, but I also agree that the cost cannot be included in the "250M GBP per hull". It is really tight. I see zero possibility the 57/76 mm gun will have any guided round. I also expect no hull-mounted sonar, even ship torpedo-defense system might not be included in the "250M GBP per hull". On this regard, "12 CAMM" (even in mushrooms) is a great triumph, if done within the "250M GBP per hull" (I'm afraid, only 2-3 out of 5 hulls may get it).Lord Jim wrote:ExLS is not an overly expensive system and not overly complicated and in fact requires very little maintenance. It acts like a four round storage container you install in its mountings and plug it in then you are ready to go. No one has yet bought it because it is so new and most planned designs have got either the Mk41 or Sylver launchers already built into the design. It is up against ESSM as a self defence weapon for use in the Mk41 and we will have to see how things develop as Sea Ceptor requires far fewer on board system to support it then ESSM. New Zealand has taken the" Mushrooms" as it wanted the cheapest possible method of installing Sea Ceptor which is fine but they are ending up with only 12 rounds per ship, but that is better than only 8 Sea Sparrows..Agreed. But, I think there is no hope for "more money for T31e".As for the £250M per ship, I think that is going to be a moot point as I am pretty sure the ongoing review is going to point out in one way or another.
Then, I think the only way will be to "reduce the hull number". For example, announce "with successful forward basing trial of T23GP, and T31e being more simpler in its complexity, now RN can go with 4 not 5 GPFFs", and then "build 4 hulls with 300M GBP average cost. 50M GBP is saved!".
If this comes true, Arrowhead 140 may revive, if the major issue was cost, not licensing.
Could also be why the RN/MoD have (apparently) tried to discourage the inclusion of RN/MoD owned kit being used and costed within the £250m budget - they want the £250m to be used only to build the hull (to high spec) and for the key kit that needs to be built in from the start. 1) They will need to have a separate budget for the fleetwide (interim) ASM expected to come in when Harpoon leaves service in 2023 (coincidental timeframe with the T31 programme). Sufficient numbers would need to be purchased in bulk for 19 escorts, so why budget for them in the T31 programme now. 2) Phalanx and 30mm cannons are already pooled and shared (I believe) among RFA vessels when deployed to high threat areas, why not extend this practice to the T31s? 3) there may already be (although it us not 100% clear) an extra 3 sets of towed sonars purchased with the first T26 batch - thus there may be an extra 3 sets available for the T31.Lord Jim wrote:That could be a very prophetic question with everyone looking to get the most out of the funding. The RN could take FFBNW to the next level in order to retain both numbers and capability.
I push ExLS, because it is needed to fight against ESSM in export market. Here "it" means, any high-density package not ExLS only.Ron5 wrote:Neither of you know the price for ExLs so I fail to understand why you think it is cheap.
Being the first, and maybe only, ExLs customer will entail extra problems and cost.
The ExLs is not just an empty box.
Every extra penny spent on ExLs over the mushrooms is a penny wasted. Do you really think the MoD has pennies to waste?
Agreed.Right now I think the most likely outcome is a single source contract to Cammell Laird to build Leanders. I expect contract talks will start around the end of the year. I don't think that would be the worst outcome. Babcock's is profitable on it's current workload, it won't go bankrupt.
I think, we must be careful not to mix a "stand-alone" system and "something which is a part of the larger system".Ron5 wrote:I wonder how many systems can be used like Phalanx with a pool of kit held in a warehouse and just fitted when needed for a deployment. In other words, just 2 or 3 systems can be bought for a fleet of five ships thus lowering the average ship cost.
How about:
That easily looks like the most likely option.Ron5 wrote:Right now I think the most likely outcome is a single source contract to Cammell Laird to build Leanders.
I have been making this point for a while. Could never understand the logic of simply buying a foreign design for the T31 programme, unless the primary driver was saving money.shark bait wrote:It was a bit of a difficult proposition selling a Danish ship full of French systems as the 'Best of British Engineering' to export all over the world!
The answer to that will be somewhere in the fine print of the RFI, I suspect.clinch wrote:How can the Government halt the tender process and start again because one of the contestants made a bollocks of its bid?
We really don't have enough information to make such assumptions, but over here the DoD can pretty easily say "although they stated their bid was compliant, we have numbers that say otherwise so we're not giving them a contract." I'd also point out that legal action could skunk the whole program, and neither team is in a position where they'd benefit from the whole thing going away.clinch wrote:How can the Government halt the tender process and start again because one of the contestants made a bollocks of its bid? Wouldn't the Leander team have a case for legal action?
Pongoglo-san, I totally agree to your point. But the small size directly reflects the small cost. I also see no hope for future growth. Any future "more resource" shall go to CVF, T45, T26, P-8As, and F35B. So, I really think its small size is not an issue. Also, it is as large as ANZAC frigate, which I think has a good sea going (better than FFG-7 class, I read somewhere).Pongoglo wrote:OK , so Ive just spent part of the bank holiday ( sad I know!) trying to decipher CL's new site and the team Leander bid. Do we now think they are the only game in town? Since the MoD made their somewhat surprising announcement to suspend the whole thing and then the re-start happened Babcock seem to be running on silent (if not totally sunk ?) whilst CL's comms team have been on constant send.
Have to admit that i was not initially a fan, and still have reservations, size being one, I am pretty impressed with the new site and especially the way it is UK centric and appears first and foremost to be focused on the RN requirement with export potential taking second place. I contrast Babcock's Arrowhead 140 site was very non specific as to what systems they were proposing for the RN vessel and seemed very much focused on export first.
I still very much favour the Arrowhead 140, and hope it comes back from the dead, however as Donald san has stated if it hasn't happened within three weeks it probably never will. Why do I favour Arrowhead ? well aside from the fact that it is based on a well proven in-service Frigate that was knocked out very cheap which proves it can be done, the fact that it had a Merlin size hangar, the speed to keep up with a QE task force and could carry a decent number of CAMM swung it for me . Also its sheer size alone made it that much more survivable, as well as giving it greater potential for a mid-life upgrade and future growth.
If as some believe this image conveys the RN specific version of T31, then with a Mk 8 gun, Artisan, Phalanx and CAMM as well as Harpoon and with the exception of Phalanx all ported over from the Type 23, then it could well be that they may be able to churn out a potent little warship, and even better that a worthy successor to the Type 23 and indeed the original Leander might still be found. Didn't Cammell Laird build some after all?
For my money however it is still too small and a tad too slow. Add five meters fore and aft and two meters in the beam, with perhaps an extra deck, thus allowing for a Merlin capable hangar and more space forward for CAMM and it would probably get my vote.
