Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Ron5]

What is an "asymmetric warfare center" ?

Take the "bad guys" out, on land. And in a bit more covert/ nuanced way than the USN response in Lebanon (after the attack on the Marines), which was
- 288 shells from the battleship
--30 of them landing on the Syrian Commander's post (supposedly there was 'no such') and taking him out... with the entourage

A conference room then.

[Poiuytrewq]

Cross post from USA thread

Apologies Donald, I hadn't seen your post in the USA thread.

We all know US ship building cost is much different from (or expensive than) UKs.

Agreed, I estimate this difference to be in the region of 20% to 30%.

Then, a $300M = 230M GBP 3500t Heritage-class cutter will be 170M GBP. With 3D radar, ESM and decoy launcher, 57mm gun, 3 RHIBs and a Helo, also with good range and endurance, I think this is exactly the "modern Floreal-class". Five such hull will be 850M GBP. With design+initial (which shall be small), it will be a 900-950M GBP project.

I agree with your figures but I think close to £1Bn for five basic patrol vessels is too high. I would aim for a programme cost of around £750m to £800m for 5 hulls if the T31 programme ends up firmly in the 'global patrol' bracket. This would leave £450m to £500m from the T31 budget to go towards a 9th T26 hull.

Using the space astern, making the flight deck Merlin capable will be easy (*1). With shifted single funnel, even making the hangar Merlin capable will be doable. If added with a CIWS, and a space FFBNW for 12 CAMM, I think it must be a good candidate for T31.

The 16.5m beam will help a lot when trying to supersize the hanger to become Merlin capable. This would be something Leander will struggle to compete with.

Can Babcock handle this?

I think the obvious answer is Yes but my question would be why has Babcock not floated this? Even if a RN spec Hertiage Class vessel costed as much as £180m each it would still be possible to squeeze 7 hulls out of the T31 budget. Worth considering and no chance of mission creep. These vessels would clearly not be Frigates.

ALL guess, I agree, but my point is, I like the shifted funnel, which makes the orientation of the hanger easier,

The offset funnel is a very clever design feature.

Because 4500t Legend-class cutter is $700M = 540M GBP, which is less-capable than 470M GBP unit-cost FTI (yes here I assume French cost is not much different from UKs, might be wrong), let's assume a Legend-class built in UK will amount 400M GBP (= 75% of 540M)

With a £400m unit price the Legend class would be a bargain. Personally I think this is what the T23 successor should have looked like.

image.jpg

With the stern ramp removed and the flight deck extended these vessels could be extremely capable. I wouldn't bet against a Legend Class variant winning the USN FFG(X) competition.

[donald_of_tokyo]

When we compare Legend-class and Heritage-class, the fact that the latter is "less than half" the price of the former is very interesting.

- The only difference in armaments is CIWS
- Top speed differs a lot, 28 knots vs 22+ knots. But, to do it Legened-class is using expensive GT.
- range and endurance is similar
- 3D radar is TRS16 vs SeaJiraffe. Do they differ a lot?

Looking from the fact that the cost is 2 times different, it looks like the internal standard differs a lot. T31 to be cheap can be accomplished if we accept the ship hull standard to be lower, I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend-class_cutter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage-class_cutter

PS I am NOT a fan of Legend class. It looks like lacking future growth margins. Heritage class looks better in that point of view, may be because it is bulky hull. (but of course, Legend class is 1000t larger. So even though it looks like lacking margins, it must have it somwehre, or GT-related intake and exhaust is needed to be payed?)

[Poiuytrewq]

When we compare Legend-class and Heritage-class, the fact that the latter is "less than half" the price of the former is very interesting.

I agree interesting comparison. In simplistic terms is it safe to assume very roughly that a Tier 2 Frigate should cost around £400m if built in the UK and a Frigate sized Global Patrol Vessel around £175m?

If this is accurate is Leander just a dangerous compromise?

The only difference in armaments is CIWS
- Top speed differs a lot, 28 knots vs 22+ knots. But, to do it Legened-class is using expensive GT.
- range and endurance is similar
- 3D radar is TRS16 vs SeaJiraffe.

Again, it's the difference between a Frigate and a simple patrol vessel. No need for the expensive GT for maritime security tasks if a helicopter and fast RHIB's are embarked. The Holland class OPV which is widely regarded as a very successful patrol vessel has a similar top speed of 22knts.

The range and endurance of both vessels is impressive and it's likely that Artisan will be installed regardless of where the T31 ends up.

I am NOT a fan of Legend class. It looks like lacking future growth margins. Heritage class looks better in that point of view, may be because it is bulky hull. (but of course, Legend class is 1000t larger. So even though it looks like lacking margins, it must have it somwehre, or GT-related intake and exhaust is needed to be payed?)

I think there is more space in the Legend Class than it would first appear. Are the crew space requirements on USCG vessels more generous than on USN vessels? I'm not sure. With a crew allocation of around 120 and space for 148 it seems pretty comparable with other frigates in this bracket.

I do remember reading about the process of optimising the Legend Class as a potential contender for the FFG(X) competition and the amount of space that was able to be reconfigured to make the vessel suitable for service with USN. The fact that 16x Mk41 cells are already FFBNW is a bonus.

Personally I think the USCG nailed it with the Legend Class. We will have to agree to disagree again

[Ron5]

After Boeing has committed to produce the next USAF advanced trainer for $19m each including engine, I think we might have to revisit our ideas on costings.

That's about 14m pounds.

[Repulse]

With the T45 & future T26 fleet focused around escorting carrier groups and home fleet duties (inc TAPS & FRE), I think a specific role for the T31 would actually help to focus on getting something useful. Whilst turning it in a 2nd rate ASW frigate is tempting, the real answer would be to order more T26s. So for me, one real role remains - that is a “colonial sloop” to protect and operate from forward UK BOTs / bases, a modern day Tribal Class if you’d like - covering FIGS, WIGS, GiGS and BaGS (operating from the new Bahrain base).

The Tribal class was “designed to be self-contained warships with weapon and sensor systems to cover many possible engagements” - so at a high level:
- Local AAW - Artisan & CAMM / CIWS
- Limited ASuW - medium gun, Wildcat and limited SSM (e.g. 2x2 Harpoons)
- Limited ASW - hull sonar, ASW torpedos and Wildcat (with dipping sonar)
- Ability to operate a small RM force with RHIBs
- Ability to transverse Oceans but operate in shallow / coastal waters
- Medium speed and range: @25kts and max 4,000nm range

When you look at it this way, and add on exportability and UK IP then we have a design already - it is called the Al Khareef. It is proven, similar to other ships operated by the RN, and should be quick to get started.

Obviously, it would need RN systems (CMS etc) including re-use of the T23 kit and some modification - but base design including size I would not change, there is no need. Assuming a 50% increase from the original 400mn for 3 to get to a 200mn per hull budget - and build 4 for 800mn. I’d build them under licence at Appledore - job done.

I know there will be plenty that will say this is not the way to go - but taking a step back and looking at requirements and forcing value for money for the tax payer then it is IMO the right option.

Assuming some deal will be done to perserve the 1.25bn budget, I’d spend the rest on a San-Giorgio style LPD as a roaming forward SF/RM base which would also replace RFA Argus.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I like the Value for Money angle, and assuming also just the money that there is for surface ships in the EP as it stands (MDP should come out with results, if any, soon) ,

T45 & future T26 fleet focused around escorting carrier groups

yes, exactly
whereas for

home fleet duties (inc TAPS & FRE)

we will be fine out to mid 30's by allocating from the dwindling T23 fleet - with the tail-less assumed "gone" for this thought exercise

forcing value for money for the tax payer

will not be met by parking warships "permanently" into roles where none such is permanently required. I will comment in that same order as for what makes me say that

covering FIGS, WIGS, GiGS and BaGS

- "F" is the one that is actually applicable (EZ enforcement primary though, relative to deterring any military threat)
- "W" has a totally different rqrmnt for part of the year, and for the rest an OPV of the latest batch should be used: not to run down drug runners, but to train local forces to do so
- "G" just got their new boats; I am sure someone did the threat assessment (they are heftier than the ones being replaced)
- "Ba" has all the naval fire power that might be needed already in presence; we supply a niche capability but it is deplorable that a Bay is permanently tied down is enabling that force to operate anywhere in the Gulf

Which last point neatly takes me to your "roaming base" idea: a design (was it "patrol Bay") sketched out here could easily do that role, and by such a vessel built and being available would help to push further out in time the need to start replacement builds for our amph. fleet
... we could get 1 or 2 more T26s over those years, to be able to meet one of the three main tasks of the RN properly and at any time: viz. CTF, CASD and LitM (the third one presumably supported by the first one).

Substitute Oman (the new Babcock/ Oman Dry Docks facility) for Bahrain to support a T31 off Aden - another might be partaking in Atalanta - and should shore based missiles start to fly (to try and block commercial shipping), then escalating RM presence, with suitably sized shore parties, could be done with the suitable vessels... to a likely instant 'cooling effect'

[Caribbean]

With the exception of the range (6500nm) that's pretty much the T31 RFI requirement. (though the initial batch will be FTR or FFBNW a fair amount of the stuff that goes bang - the RFI does make provision for it). I would also say that Leander is Al Khareef built to a bigger budget.

As has been noted by others, the RN needs to be able to operate at a distance, over long distances and in all sea states, which drives size, range and endurance - the Khareefs, as they are, can only manage around 2 weeks and 4000nm and would, I suspect, be hard pressed to make a transit, never mind operate, in sea state 9, as required in the T31 RFI.

[Tempest414]

As I said in the past we should have spent the 635 million from TOBA on 3 112 meter Khareef Corvettes / Patrol Sloop ( Donald did a great image of it) we could have then built 3 more from the 1.25 for 650 million leaving 600 million maybe a LPH

[SW1]

in the gulf we could cover it with bay and unmanned mcmv capabilities, plus whenever the carrier group head that way it can call in!

the Falklands it’s really presence and surveillance bay with scan eagle 3, manned and unmanned surface vessels, and helicopter.

Gib can be manned and unmanned vessels operating from shore

the carribean is presence, surveillance and disaster relief or a bay with scan eagle 3, manned and unmanned surface vessels, helicopter and some engineers and support eq.

All the above with significant more endurance than a small frigate


Around the Uk can have unmanned systems operating from the opvs we already have in build.

The harder war fighting capabilities left to carriers type 23 and type45. And type 26 in future so what exactly is the point or need for type 31??

[Repulse]

will not be met by parking warships "permanently" into roles where none such is permanently required. I will comment in that same order as for what makes me say that

Disagree - the whole point is to forward base vessels to have an on call regional presence. Making them bigger or more sophisticated than the role dictates is a waste of funds, not only does it mean that they cannot be forward based easily, but it means you need more of them and each needs more crew. Saving even £50mn per ship is a lot of savings that can be spent more usefully elsewhere.

”W" has a totally different rqrmnt for part of the year, and for the rest an OPV of the latest batch should be used: not to run down drug runners, but to train local forces to do so

I’m not talking HADR, that should be an RFA stood up around Hurricane season. This is there for anti drugs patrols and general security of the region. Agree, though perhaps a B2 River could do this.

- "G" just got their new boats; I am sure someone did the threat assessment (they are heftier than the ones being replaced)

This is more than just Gibraltar this is more about the Straights and working with NATO allies with the capability to venture further into the Med as needed.

"Ba" has all the naval fire power that might be needed already in presence; we supply a niche capability but it is deplorable that a Bay is permanently tied down is enabling that force to operate anywhere in the Gulf

I’d see that the Gulf Escort would go - now a carrier group would be operating in the area time to time, but a ship in the Gulf or operating from Oman is a must IMO.

So perhaps reducing down to a forward presence fleet of 3 ( Al Khareef) “Colonial Shoops” and 2 B2 Rivers would be enough, leaving more money for the Roaming LPD.

With the exception of the range (6500nm) that's pretty much the T31 RFI requirement. (

No exactly - no HADR requirement, no extension in length, just a Al Khreef with RN weapon systems taken from the T23s.

[donald_of_tokyo]

When we compare Legend-class and Heritage-class, the fact that the latter is "less than half" the price of the former is very interesting.

I agree interesting comparison. In simplistic terms is it safe to assume very roughly that a Tier 2 Frigate should cost around £400m if built in the UK and a Frigate sized Global Patrol Vessel around £175m?

If this is accurate is Leander just a dangerous compromise?

Yes, I think T31e is always very dangerous.

Floreal-class build cost corrected for 2% inflation is £170m (if I remember correctly). Adding SAM (CAMM) and improving CMS to handle it (AAW is CMS power intensive), it will be £220-250m unit cost.

In case of Leander, £1.25b includes "design modification cost", and "initial build cost" (Khareef was built at VSEL, not CL), so I think its unit cost is ~£220m.

So, I think Leander's hull standard is not much different from Heritage-class cutter (and therefore can be built in shipyards such as Eastern at US and CL at UK. Note CL is NOT an escort builder now).

We sometimes forget, T31e unit cost is only 1/3 of that of T26. While, FTI unit cost is 2/3 of FREMM. Big big difference.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...
When you look at it this way, and add on exportability and UK IP then we have a design already - it is called the Al Khareef. It is proven, similar to other ships operated by the RN, and should be quick to get started.

Obviously, it would need RN systems (CMS etc) including re-use of the T23 kit and some modification - but base design including size I would not change, there is no need. Assuming a 50% increase from the original 400mn for 3 to get to a 200mn per hull budget - and build 4 for 800mn. I’d build them under licence at Appledore - job done.

I know there will be plenty that will say this is not the way to go - but taking a step back and looking at requirements and forcing value for money for the tax payer then it is IMO the right option.

Assuming some deal will be done to perserve the 1.25bn budget, I’d spend the rest on a San-Giorgio style LPD as a roaming forward SF/RM base which would also replace RFA Argus.

I agree it is interesting proposal. But, I've heard somewhere that Khareef class's stability is not good enough. Thus, I shall simply propose to add 6m amidship to solve it. This will at the same time solve the range issue. Also, add 3-4 m astern to make the flight deck Merlin capable. With increased length, the top speed will improve by 1-2 knots, as well.

I think these 2 modification is simple. At least, much much simpler than Leander's.

This 108m version Khareef will look like this ...

khareef_mod_v2.jpg

[Repulse]

Hi donald_of_tokyo, I’m okay with a minor evolution, but as long as it’s not used to add another £50mn to a ship that should cost £200mn. It will have limitations for sure, but that’s the point build it to do the specific role be asked if it.

[Caribbean]

As I said in the past we should have spent the 635 million from TOBA on 3 112 meter Khareef Corvettes / Patrol Sloop ( Donald did a great image of it) we could have then built 3 more from the 1.25 for 650 million leaving 600 million maybe a LPH

In that, we are in almost full agreement. Keep the B1's for home waters and build a UK Floreal/Holland equivalent instead of the B2s for around £175-200m each. Then I would have spent any remaining TOBA money, plus the £1.25b on four "proper" light frigates at around £325m each.

the carribean is presence, surveillance and disaster relief or a bay with scan eagle 3, manned and unmanned surface vessels, helicopter and some engineers and support eq.

The Bays are great - we just have too few of them. A small, cheap patrol ship with the capability to operate Scan Eagle, a light helicopter and a couple of fast RHIBs/ interceptors could achieve the same effect (25kts plus would help as well). Personally I would couple it with one or two adapted civilian container freighters for the HADR role. Let the Bays do what they were designed for.

In reality, the Caribbean is too big for a single ship, even with unmanned vessels/ UAVs.

[Ron5]

Putting to one side the rather strange idea that the too feeble Type 31e should be made even feebler, making a Leander shorter won't shave 20% off its cost.

Go look at the quantified contributions to a frigates total cost, that will give an idea what to remove if saving even more money is the object.

In other words, the extra midships section inserted into an A Khareef to create Leander, contains fuel tanks, extra accommodation and a mission bay (big metal shed). Dirt cheap. All the expensive gubbins are forward & aft.

[Repulse]

Ron5, the point I am trying to say is that VT/BAE built 3 Al Khareefs for £400mn 10 years ago. If we stick with the role I described - then apart from building with reused RN kit from the T23s, then I say just go with the design as is. I’m think a 50% uplift is reasonable in price so we’ll have 3 or 4 at £200mn a piece.

[Scimitar54]

But they will be less useful!

[Caribbean]

the point I am trying to say is that VT/BAE built 3 Al Khareefs for £400mn 10 years ago. If we stick with the role I described - then apart from building with reused RN kit from the T23s, then I say just go with the design as is. I’m think a 50% uplift is reasonable in price so we’ll have 3 or 4 at £200mn a piece.

That seems about right - 3% inflation over 10 years would give a cost of approx. £537m, so £179-80m each, plus some inevitable redesign work (to allow for different weapon systems etc) and the cost of the stretch - should come in just under £200m. This is what I would have chosen instead of the RB2s (with lots of FFBNW). Three corvettes might have allowed the Government the political leeway to build only four T31, but to a better standard.

[Ron5]

Ron5, the point I am trying to say is that VT/BAE built 3 Al Khareefs for £400mn 10 years ago. If we stick with the role I described - then apart from building with reused RN kit from the T23s, then I say just go with the design as is. I’m think a 50% uplift is reasonable in price so we’ll have 3 or 4 at £200mn a piece.

And my point is that an Al Khareef to Type 31 spec won't save you as much as you think it will.

I believe that the Leander stretch confers greater sea keeping, greater endurance, more accommodation, and a very useful mission bay, all for a very low additional price. Just my opinion: well worth it.

[Lord Jim]

I still think that instead of rushing to build a platform like the T-31 we should concentrate of the T-26 and its evolution. Given the timescale for the T-26 programme surely it is feasible to extend the programme to build more of either the same design and an revolved version. Yes this would mean the RN has fewer escorts for a period of time but given the inability if the service to operate all of its existing assets due to personnel shortages the actual impact would be far less than it would initially appear. We are going to be building the T-26 through the 2020s and into the 2030s so I am pretty sure funding could be found during that period for long lead items to allow continued production beyond the current programmes timeframe. Such a decision would give BAe confidence in future work and probably bring further cost reductions. In addition incorporating new capabilities into a, by then mature platform would be far more cost effective that designing a new platform from scratch. The more I read on how the USN has managed the Arleigh Burke programme and where it is heading, it shows that a platform designed nearly 30 years ago, if allowed to evolve can still be a very effective platform both today and tomorrow, and be cost effective. So instead of building the five T-31s, use the allocated funding to ensure the T-26 already planned are built and equipped to their full potential and any funding remain used to kick start the MPHC programme sooner rather than than later.

[Repulse]

But they will be less useful!

Yes, for everything that isn’t their primary role. As Lord Jim suggests there are things that the money being spent on, but if the T31 has to happen let’s make it worth something. My current favourite option is keep the 3 B1 Rivers, buy another T26 and a SF/RM flat top like I suggested above.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Hi donald_of_tokyo, I’m okay with a minor evolution, but as long as it’s not used to add another £50mn to a ship that should cost £200mn. It will have limitations for sure, but that’s the point build it to do the specific role be asked if it.

Stability will not be "go OK with", I'm afraid. For example, if sent to icy region, it will sink because of added ice. (Omani Corvette will never be sent to Norway, but, this mod-Khareef may be).

Putting to one side the rather strange idea that the too feeble Type 31e should be made even feebler, making a Leander shorter won't shave 20% off its cost.
Go look at the quantified contributions to a frigates total cost, that will give an idea what to remove if saving even more money is the object.
In other words, the extra midships section inserted into an A Khareef to create Leander, contains fuel tanks, extra accommodation and a mission bay (big metal shed). Dirt cheap. All the expensive gubbins are forward & aft.

My point is, Leander is changing the hull design too much. For example, the long mid-hull section with large opening (for 4 RHIB) is a "nightmare" from mechanical design perspective (I know mechanics, a little). There shall be many tricks in the design. For example, why there is a centeral structure and hence the mission bay is not penetrating, is to mitigate structural issue, I guess. You can see my plan is structurally much much simple than Leander. Even the RHIB location can be un-changed = each and every detail design can be reused.

But, as Repulse-san says, all of this is "if there is no chance to increase T26". Or, "if T31 program is ever to proceed".

If T31e program proceeds with current requirement list, I agree Leander is the best answer. Anything "better" is out of the scope. Judging from the cost, T31 is surely a "Floreal class" added with speed (20-->25knots) and SAM (CAMM, even 12 is "great". Modified Floreal has 2x2 Mistaral), and 2 more RHIB (Floreal does has cargo space), and deleting SSM (although Floreal had only 2, and even zero after modernization).

[Repulse]

Stability will not be "go OK with", I'm afraid. For example, if sent to icy region, it will sink because of added ice. (Omani Corvette will never be sent to Norway, but, this mod-Khareef may be).

My principal is that it is a forward based “Colonial Sloop” so should never be sent to Norway, nothing gets added that doesn’t support its primary role. I take your point though that the FIGS ship might need it, in which case I agree it should be added.

For Norway, I’d see a San Giusto type being of better use - 5 Wildcats, operating CB90 type fast craft (or unmanned MCM or ASW drones) with Artisan and CAMM.

[SW1]

As I said in the past we should have spent the 635 million from TOBA on 3 112 meter Khareef Corvettes / Patrol Sloop ( Donald did a great image of it) we could have then built 3 more from the 1.25 for 650 million leaving 600 million maybe a LPH

In that, we are in almost full agreement. Keep the B1's for home waters and build a UK Floreal/Holland equivalent instead of the B2s for around £175-200m each. Then I would have spent any remaining TOBA money, plus the £1.25b on four "proper" light frigates at around £325m each.

the carribean is presence, surveillance and disaster relief or a bay with scan eagle 3, manned and unmanned surface vessels, helicopter and some engineers and support eq.

The Bays are great - we just have too few of them. A small, cheap patrol ship with the capability to operate Scan Eagle, a light helicopter and a couple of fast RHIBs/ interceptors could achieve the same effect (25kts plus would help as well). Personally I would couple it with one or two adapted civilian container freighters for the HADR role. Let the Bays do what they were designed for.

In reality, the Caribbean is too big for a single ship, even with unmanned vessels/ UAVs.

So use the type 31 budget and buy a couple more then. The 4 bays we built cost £600m. Small does not equal cheap is that not the adage!

I think the thing with type 31 is people want it to look like a traditional frigate so we can claim we’re keeping numbers up! I have heard naval architects in the past describe the khareef ships as cramped and poorly laid out as they tried to stuff to much on a small hull. If true not a gd starting point for improving retention or long fwd deployed operations.

Many nations contribute vessels to the carribean operations so it’s not just a single ship that is just our contribution.