Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[shark bait]

In other words, the T31 ships can be delayed, I guess? For example,

The only reason the T31 exists is there is not enough money to build the T26 fast enough. Delaying the T31 cancels the whole point of the T31.

Has anyone asked if BAe can build two T26 for the T31 budget?

Considering they cost around a billion each its unlikely we'll get two for 1.25billion.

[Caribbean]

rapidly developing??? T31???

When compared to the T26, the T31 program is virtually instantaneous!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Land based options exist id the DoD put more money into them and this is what the gripe is about. High value land targets should be protected by land based systems especially at home. Oversea is different when you are protecting deployed forces

Late to this ABM discussion, but...

LJ has got it right on all accounts (the small defined areas for the ships and all that from the intro/ quote). Protecting deployed forces indeed is an exception as with ballistic missiles the threat axis is better known when compared to defending against other types of threats
- no wonder Russia made their Iskanders semi-ballistic, with end manoeuvres starting so early that getting around a "box" is perfectly feasible... then you need more boxes (or guessing which targets should have their dedicated defences)... in both cases you need more "boxes" = money

[ArmChairCivvy]

the T31 program is virtually instantaneous!

and, as of yet, the rqrmnts spec has not changed... can anyone count how many times that happened during the T26 saga?

[Tempest414]

there has been a lot of talk about how many CAMM will be or should be on the Type 31 due to budget however as there is a 13.5 billion pound budget for air and sea launched missiles should the missile load out of each ship come from this budget and not the build budget i.e if type 31 had 36 CAMM this should come from the 13.5 billion missile procurement budget and not the 250 million for the ship

[ArmChairCivvy]

i.e if type 31 had 36 CAMM this should come from the 13.5 billion missile procurement budget and not the 250 million for the ship

I wonder what makes you think that is not the case? Just like with a tiffie (sensors, pylons are part of the platform cost), sensors (nice to have a sensor-agnostic missile available) and silos (they are cheap, and economy versions are available, as seen in other countries fitting out plans) are part of the T31 platform - they might be "donated" from ships to be decommissioned... good! - and the fills/refills come out of that 13.5bn.

------
Donations might come at Book Cost; normally makes for a substantial discount

[abc123]

Going back to escort discussion:



Navy lookout's twitter confirms :
7 years away - First type 26 frigate HMS Glasgow is due to be accepted by the RN in summer 2025 before entering service in 2027.
HMS Cardiff, HMS Belfast and the remaining five ships will follow with the last ship commissioning in late 2030s

T23 is to decommission from 2023 onwards, one per year. As RN needs the crew of T26 not before "entering service" but before "accepted by the RN", this means T26-hull-1 will replace T23-hull-3 (to decommission in 2025) or even hull-2 (2024). I understand T26-hull-2 and 3 will follow by 1.5 year each (*1) = T26-hull-2 on 2027, T26-hull-3 on 2028 to be accepted by the RN.

In other words, the T31 ships can be delayed, I guess? For example,

- extend the T23-hull-1 (Argyll) life to (late) 2024 (then 33 years old), and let her to be replaced with T26-hull-1.
- extend the T23-hull-2 (Lancaster) life to (late) 2026 (then 34 years old), and let her to be replaced with T26-hull-2.
- similarly, replace T23-hull-3 (Iron Duke) on 2026 (then 33 years old) with T31-hull-1
- similarly, replace T23-hull-4 (Monmouth) on late 2027 (then 34 years old) with T26-hull-3.
- T23-hull-5 (Montrose) on late 2027 (as planned, then 33 years old) with T31-hull-2
and continue.

This will make it possible to shift the "1st hull commission" of T31 from 2023 to 2026 (or even 2027), and just continue as 1 hull per year, while keeping the T26 program at 1.5 year per hull pace?

*1: I assume 1st ship needs 6 months longer to build than the 2nd. As hull-2 starts 24 months later, it will keep 1.5 hull per year pace.

Seven years. Fu**, I still have time to sire a child and send it into a first grade before I see first Type 26 in service..

[Ron5]

Considering they cost around a billion each its unlikely we'll get two for 1.25billion.

Nope, just nope. They're about 600m UPC. No need to add program fixed overhead for follow on orders.

[Ron5]

the T31 program is virtually instantaneous!

and, as of yet, the rqrmnts spec has not changed... can anyone count how many times that happened during the T26 saga?

The initial stage of the program was billed as being a discussion between builders & the MoD as to what could be built for the budget. A trade off of spec vs cost. That phase is supposed to have been completed so it's very reasonable to assume the spec is fairly fixed now and not the same as the spec when the program started. Of course being the UK, it will be shrouded in clouds of secrecy for the usual BS reasons.

[Ron5]

Donations might come at Book Cost; normally makes for a substantial discount

You missed this discussion when you were away on your vacation but book value totally depends on the "useful life" the MoD assigns to an asset. So as an example, if CAMM is booked for a 25 year life, after 5 years its book value would be 20/25 of its initial purchase price. So not at all cheap.

[Poiuytrewq]

They're about 600m UPC.

How have you come to that figure?

[donald_of_tokyo]

In other words, the T31 ships can be delayed, I guess? For example,

The only reason the T31 exists is there is not enough money to build the T26 fast enough. Delaying the T31 cancels the whole point of the T31.

Sorry, I could not understand your point. You mean, delaying 5 T31, we can get 5 T26? No, it won't happen.
Using 1.25B GBP for 5 T31 a little bit delayed, and another independent money for T26 as planned. I see no problem here, because T26 hull 1 and 2 comes in when the 5 T23GP, not the 8 T23ASW, are to decommission.

[ArmChairCivvy]

book value totally depends on the "useful life" the MoD assigns to an asset.

Certainly. And they do not have to worry about the taxman, breathing down on the neck for creating inflated asset values while hiding taxable profits through prolonged depreciation schedules.

[Lord Jim]

Is it listed anywhere how many Sea Ceptors the RN has actually bought? Knowing how things have been done in the past we could only actually have enough for 13 ship ready loads plus half as much again in stores.

[shark bait]

Sorry, I could not understand your point. You mean, delaying 5 T31, we can get 5 T26? No, it won't happen

The only reason the T31 exists is to deliver ships faster than the T26, within a fixed annual budget. A delay does not achieve that.

They're about 600m UPC

Where has that come from? So far total commitment is over £5bn for three ships.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Sorry, I could not understand your point. You mean, delaying 5 T31, we can get 5 T26? No, it won't happen

The only reason the T31 exists is to deliver ships faster than the T26, within a fixed annual budget. A delay does not achieve that.

Sorry again, misunderstanding exists. (I think my point was not clear enough).

My whole point is T26 hull-1 and hull-2 comes in before any of T23ASW are to decommission.

Please note, "comes in" is "delivered to RN" and not "commissioned". Crew is needed when the ship is delivered, not when commissioned. In other words, T26 needs the crew of T23GP-hull-2 and 5 = T26 hull-1 and 2 will replace 2 of the 5 T26GP, not T23ASW.

This is fact analysis.


And, my proposal is to, delay the decommission date of T23GP-1 and 2 for ~2 years, we can totally delay the T31-hull-1 deliver date by 3 years. This has no impact on T31 and T26 build cost, just shifting (delaying) T31. For example, Navy can "lend" T31e program cost (100-150M GBP/years) to Army for 2 years, and get them back 2 years later (around 2029-2030). It is "annual budget" flat.

[add] My concern is, T31 project is too much in hurry. For example, I think Babcock needs some time to reform their proposal. Also, it makes it possible to decide this issue after (delayed) MDP.

[Ron5]

Ron5 wrote:
They're about 600m UPC


Where has that come from? So far total commitment is over £5bn for three ships.

The context for my comment was the cost of building extra Type 26's beyond the current 8 that are committed but not yet under contract.

In that context, the only cost to be considered is the just the actual cost of building each extra ship with no allocation of any fixed development and support costs. In other words the unit production cost (UPC).

A valid UK comparison would be the Type 45 program: including all fixed costs, the program of 6 ships were built at an average of over 1 billion each. However as revealed by a parliamentary answer, their UPC was a little over 600m each with about a third of that paying for its UK/PAAMS system.

You may also be interested in this table from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... s_2018.pdf

Look at the Type 26 line.

Dmag2OVXsAAuI4Z.jpg

As a commentary, UK politicians, press, MoD and Treasury always talk about the average ship cost not the UPC. So Gordan Brown's mob when cancelling the last Type 45's stated both inside and outside of parliament, that the cost of building each ship at one billion each was unaffordable. A very blatant lie. A very blatant lie that was repeated by Ms Penny Mordant when she made a speech in the US that the Type 45's were the most expensive ships ever built at over a billion each. Her audience thought she was a complete idiot for saying that.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Oh yeah

This is Kafka's Ministry of Information, to the extreme.

Click on the first line of the background to the Responsible Statistician's graph, and:
AJAX (formerly Scout)
- zero cost variance
- zero time variance
- and, ! all KUR performance criteria met,

I am not NAO (they obviously were too bothersome) and everyone can do the research for themselves

[ArmChairCivvy]

Investigative journalism is respected by way of
- carriers & Astutes
- core production (read: Astutes and Dreadnoughts), and
- errr, the "complex" Warrior prgrm
being "over"
- as that has been made "very" public

And everything else is bang-on & Bull's eye

[Ron5]

I am not NAO (they obviously were too bothersome) and everyone can do the research for themselves

I've read here that the NAO is no longer going to do its annual major projects report. That news passed me by, do you or anyone else have more information as to when and why that happened? I know that report bugged the heck out of the MoD but that's not really a reason for binning it.

[SW1]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ffice.html

Defence procurement minister Harriett Baldwin said the MoD has decided to review its budgets “internally” instead of having the NAO looking over the figures for major projects.

[R686]

I wasn’t sure where to put this, but it seems you are about to spend money on upgrading Phalanx


http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/un ... grade-kits

[Gabriele]

I have no clue how to read that notice. It makes no sense. The UK has 41 mounts, not 50, and most of them should already be at that standard. 5 mounts were purchased new recently and i assume they were delivered at the latest standards, the others have been upgraded (quite slowly, in truth) over the years, following an earlier purchase of upgrade kits in 2011.

This notice confuses the hell out of me.

[andrew98]

Buying some cheap 2nd hand units from somewhere so we can leave them in situ on vessels?

[cyrilranch]

I thought a contact to Babcocks to update 36 systems to block1B baseline 1 a few years back, with the T26 we would need at least 16 more to cover.
So over all we should be having just over 25 sets plus spares to cover the the ships that need it
Plus all of these will be updated to latest baseline2 which is what this news bite is about.