Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Lord Jim]

Which is the sort of the thing the MDP is looking at. It requires a rethinking of how defence procurement works and how funding is used. Rather than place a contract for say five ships in one go you place an order for one a year over the period of the contract for example, against a firm requirement for five. It is a subtle difference but it can have a major impact.

[Ron5]

Ron5 wrote:
UK millions
£200 Base 117m Leander
£205 Extend to 120m (5)
£256 25% uplift to ASW (51)
£259 Type 2150 HMS (3)
£289 Type 2087 Towed array (30)
£297 Plus manual 5” Gun (38)
£309 Plus 48 compact CAMM cells (12)
£321 Plus 8 cell strike length Mk 41 (12)
£331 Extra CMS licensing cost (10)

Very nice Ron

Are these included in your base Leander?
Artisan
Sharpeye Nav radar
Satcom
Decoys
Phalanx mount and integration
Harpoon launchers and integration
2x 30mm's

Yes except the Harpoon mounts, I'm suggesting they would be taken from the existing common pool. If you don't like that, my Super-Leander (TM) would have to have its price increased to have them.

To make Leander Merlin capable the width of the hanger will need widened by at least 2 meters. The height of the hanger will also need to be raised by a similar amount. Is this likely to result in the removal of the 30mm's from their current locations? If so where do you suggest putting them?

Yes, I'm suggesting a full width hangar. You and and I think alike, I've scratched my head over the 30mm, and I think the only available place would be either side of the Mk41 with maybe a small projecting sponson. Not crazy about that location.

P.S. At around the £350m price point the Super Leander is firmly in Arrowhead140 territory and approaching Venator 110 or possibly even Venator 120. Pretty stiff competition.

Yeah but Super-Leander is better equipped than both of those. I personally don't think you could build an A140 even for 350m.

[Ron5]

Ron5 wrote:
I'm not suggesting the Type 31 program be changed or the budget increased but following the earlier line of thought, how far could a Leander be improved, at what cost and how well would it the match up to the FTI as advertised today.

Very interesting, thanks. Although I have some questions on the cost, the line of your though is helpful.

£205m Extend to 120m (5) : Interesting. If it includes "redesigning NH90 capable hangar to Merlin capable", I think it may cost more?

No. Hangars are steel boxes.

£259m plus Type 2150 HMS (3) : It is only sonar cost, and does not include console and software, I guess.

My understanding is that price includes everything you list.

£297m plus manual 5” Gun (38) : Redesign will cost a lot (not power-point but real building, down to each and every screw). Also, anyway the arsenal will be small. Is this worth getting?

No, Space, weight, power & cooling are all allowed for in the base Leander design. The mechanical fit of the gun & magazine is simple given those. Of course a 5" gun is more useful than a 76mm. The magazine would not have the capacity of a Type 26 or AB but still would be ample and of course, additional shells could be stored in other parts of the ship.

£309m plus 48 compact CAMM cells (12) : Not sure. Who pays for this compact cells? Can the "48 CAMM" is compatible with 5inch gun at the same time? Also, I CAMM missile itself cost a lot. I am happy with 24 here.

You or I could weld up a new CAMM VLS in our garages. Not difficult. Missiles, ammunition, stores, fuel are not included in UPC. There is room & weight allowances in the bow for a 5" gun plus compact CAMM launchers.

321m plus 8 cell strike length Mk 41 (12) : But what front-end electronics to be carried? No TLAM electronics? I am not a fan of mounting Mk 41, if it is not for ESSM (for export). One candidate is VL-ASROC.

The price I quoted includes support for a couple missile types. You can chose which ones.

£331m plus extra CMS licensing cost (10) : CMS-1 is a scalable CMS, covering from River B2 OPV to T26 or T45. T26's CMS is much much larger than that on T31. So, you need significant upgrade of the CMS itself, in addition to the software licensing costs. And both these two will be much more expensive than +£10m.

No CMS upgrade is required, all the additional equipment is already supported except for CAMM-ER and that will be a simple patch. CMS-1 is rented, not bought outright. I included an additional 10m for the first year to cover builders & Navy trials. After that, the expense is not carried in the UPC.

Not sure. If true, Khareef must have been very successful in export, but not.

Khareef is a different ship.

But, as you said, Leander could be up-armed to be "so-so comparable to" FTI (except for AAW), but Leander is 3700t FLD, while FTI is 4200t. So, it will have limitation for sure. Everything is not for free.

500 tons means nothing. Both ships are paper exercises right now. In service weights are still to be finally calculated.

[Ron5]

Ron5 wrote:
I didn't claim anything for cost avoidance [e.g. not fitting a 76mm gun.]

UK millions
£200 Base 117m Leander
£205 Extend to 120m (5)
£256 plus 25% uplift to ASW (51)


For the reason indicated below I stopped at Step3 @£256 million

Poiuytrewq wrote:
At around the £350m price point the Super Leander is firmly in Arrowhead140 territory and approaching Venator 110 or possibly even Venator 120. Pretty stiff competition.

No. At the same level of increased capability of my Super-Leander, these designs would cost substantially more.

As the tail is only costed in later steps, is that +25% purely for enhancements during build, without kitting ASW out in any way? Might not be a bad investment, perhaps to be done in the later batches (when the mix for doing ASW, blue water and littoral, can be better assessed for the cost optimum - with at least one from both classes accepted into RN service!).

Yes, my 25% allows for additional quietening. I would not pretend it will come down to Type 23 or Type 26 levels. But I would be very confident that levels would be superior to the all diesel FTI.

Further, I did not add the brackets around the 76mm gun to indicate in any way that the example for cost avoidance would be a bad one. However, cost avoidance is exactly the one argument that could bring T26-Light into the argument, as in
" The difficulty is trying to estimate the amount of money that can be saved by speeding up the build schedule. I think it would be considerable. " which is also a quote, from prev. page, but this system does not do multi-page quotes so copy/ paste, then.
- I am not in the position to guesstimate the £££ saved
- but drawing on studies, the concurrency would need to be 33-37% to yield optimal savings (without creating extra capacity that after the build prgrm would again be 'v expensive')
- so, compress the 2-yr drumbeat by that much, calculate if we can still meet the 1:1 replacement of the T-23 fleet (ASW+GP) by 2035
... and Bob's your uncle; except that we don't have the numbers (£££) to assess the viability of all this

In my opinion you are flogging a dead horse. The money is not there for the type 26 build rate to be increased. Remember the Treasury manages by annual spend, program spend is secondary to them.

[Ron5]

Lastly, building the T26 in blocks and giving some of the work to the likes of Appledore would allow for broader risk adversion.

This is something that has been going through my mind could we speed up type 26 build by having blocks built at Cammell Laird

That idea was suggested in the National Shipbuilding Strategy i.e. the Type 31 winner could bid for Type 26 blocks.

[Ron5]

I was not aware of this, how much will it add to the FTI to have Aster 30's instead of ASter 15's?

Donald thankfully already mentioned most of what I would, so I don't see a need to repeat him and bloat the thread, see his own post for the majority of response.

But on the one left quoted above, it is a significant addition. Aster-15 maxes out to around 30km in vaguye range capability. Aster-30 has four times the range.

Approximately one third of the unit cost of the Type 45's was the PAAMS system. A little under 200m per ship with zero allowance for development, just pure production cost.

Sylvers are very, very expense, the software was very very expensive, the command & control gear was very expensive, as was the Sampson radar.

I can't help but wonder how much of the FTI price will be for its area AAW ability. I'm more than happy for my Super Leander to have a robust self defence capability and leave area defence to others. Just my opinion.

[Ron5]

Thanks Ron5-san. May be I shall wait for your "cost" comment, but technical issue can be discussed independently.

- The sensor will be much better.

I assume you mean radar which I disagree. Artisan can project more power in any direction, is mounted higher therefore giving more coverage, and its software (it's a software controlled radar) is second to none being based on UKPAAMS/Sampson with upgrades from the joint Anglo-American program to reduce clutter.

Do not agree.
- I agree your argument that "being AESA does not mean better", of course. JMSDF uses AESA from 1990s (fact), but I am not saying its radar is better than Sampson.
- Artisan 3D is fairly cheap, 5M GBP per unit, but still losing against Smart-S Mk2 even in Canada and New Zealand, and Chili. I think Artisan is a little expensive than Smart-S Mk2, but if it is very superior in its performance, it shall win. I "guess" losing means Artisan is "is better than, but not super-better than" Smart-S Mk2.
- FTI is design to operate Aster 30, not Aster 15. I think Artisan or Smart-S Mk2 is not designed to do so.
All in all, I have no confidence Artisan 3D is better than Thales SeaFire. Not because SeaFire is AESA, but because SeaFire looks like aiming at higher performance.

The AAW capability is 16 Aster 30 vs 12 CAMM, significantly different. (quantum leap. Not saying FTI is great, but saying Leander's AAW is fairly basic).

Ok let's upgrade the CAMM cells to 48, aand CAMM to CAMM-ER. No problem with Leander.

Leander at 250M GBP carries only 12 CAMM (or even none). Not 48, and not ER.

As a PDS, I cannot think why Aster 15 would be more effective, it is certainly at least an order of magnitude more expensive. I would guess that Aster would be a better area defense missile tho, subject to its range limitations.

It is Aster30 onboard FTI. FREMM with 16 Aster-15 on vs T26 with 48 CAMM, I agree the latter is better. But it looks like France is going to adopt Aster30 for many if not all of their Aster equipped escorts. Interesting move.

As such, the CMS level will be "more than twice" (as cost suggests) better in FTI than Leander.

Oh please.

Sorry, "please" what?

How a CMS level of a 470M GBP unit cost FTI can be lesser than 250M GBP Leander? Zero possibility. FTI's CMS is design to control, Aster 30, CAPTAS4CI, a gun, and all the other sensor-kits, while CMS of Leander is required to handle only 12 CAMM, a gun and its sensor-kits.

ASW is "so-so good (2nd-tier)" in FTI, and nothing in Leander (*1)... 8 SSM vs zero (*1)

I already said that.

ASW kit and SSM kit are NOT included in 250M GBP, so not existing, as I said. FTI has both.

Not only that but Leander can take 11m ribbies, FTI is limited to 8.5m.

Agreed.

No RN warship has Harpoons assigned. They are pooled and fitted when needed. The below decks support for them is minimal, it's not a sophisticated system.

Then cost it. It is not costed in 250M GBP Leander design. But, 8 Exocet is costed in 470M GBP FTI cost. Big difference.

I was not aware of this, how much will it add to the FTI to have Aster 30's instead of ASter 15's?

Aster 30 is within the 3.3B GBP total project cost.

But where in the T31 RFI for the £250m price are they?

Included.

What is included? As I read, SSM, ASW, torpedo defense in NOT included in £250m price. Only a gun, 12 CAMM, and 2 30mm guns (and electric kits).

There's three arguments that I refuse to accept:

1. Kit that costs more is automatically better than kit that costs less. That's absolute bollox as can be seen on any trip to a shopping mall or defence exhibition. That would say all American ships are automatically better than everyone elses because they cost more. Ha, let me introduce you to the LCS.

2. Kit that doesn't have a great international sales record is inferior. More bollox. Defence kit is bought every day for dozens of reasons that have zero to do with technical excellence. If anything purchased has an explanation as to why it was selected, fine. But without explanation, you cannot assume technical superiority.

3. Kit that uses more modern technology is inherently better than kit that doesn't. Somebody said rifled guns immediately made all smoothbores obsolete yet over on the tank thread, everyone says Leopard has a better gun than Challenger. It's the implementation of any technology that matters, not the technology itself.

[Caribbean]

It's worth reminding one and all that CAMM has been described as having a "local area air defence" capability, with approximately 75% of it's software derived from PAAMS. Presumably the "local" part comes from the relatively limited range of the base missile, and adopting CAMM-ER would extend that to "Area Air Defence" Since the basic silos are very cheap to construct, it would seem a false economy to only fit 12 to the T31. You don't have to fill them, but if they aren't there, you don't have a choice.

[Pongoglo]

Well following the discussion on MODNET Im absolutely certain that there is no chance in hell of the T31 being cancelled in favour of one or two more T26, or even of it being replaced with T26 light. Sadly there is just too much politically at stake as regards this programme, and too much face was lost when they pulled it the first time, let alone if they were to cancel it outright. Also and again very sadly I just cant see any sign at all of Babcock and Arrowhead coming back from the grave so what we will end up with is a one horse race, and Leander is it. I of course very much hope I am wrong and Euronaval might be the moment we see a re-launch by Babcock and Team 31, but personally I just cant see it happening now, so if Leander turns out to be armed and equipped much as the CGI suggests, even if initially FFBNW, it wont be the worst result.

However! What really lets it down as currently configured and as I have said before is the number of Sea Ceptor or CAMM. In the brochure they have only committed to '12 plus' and it is the 'plus' which needs to be better defined. If we accept that T31 is to have a role in a general war (and I know some on here do not) then that must surely be that of 'goal keeper' ie in providing AAW protection to the CTG, ARG and the 'Fleet train' ,Tide Class tankers and SSS. The T26 is supposed to be optimised for ASW and if they are to perform the role properly for noise reasons alone they cannot be tied to providing close in protection to the Carrier group, and the same applies to the T45 of which we already have too few and as regards PAAMS and AAW need to be deployed at distance to have best effect.

So to our beloved 'mushrooms'! Like most I can certainly see the logic when it came to the T23's in simply fitting inserts to the existing Sea Wolf tubes which negates the need to cut up the hull.By all accounts this has worked well and hence the 'mushrooms'. What I cannot understand however and what is almost beyond redemption is the seemingly ludicrous decision to fit the 'mushrooms' to subsequent classes of ships namely T26 and T31, particularly as Land Ceptor, the RA version, seems to manage perfectly well without. By sticking with the 'mushrooms' we would appear to totally negate one of the main advantages of CAMM ie its light weight, simplicity of launch and the ability to quad pack in a very tight space.

With this in mind and taking the Leander design as currently on offer or as so would appear, if you study the CGI then even if for whatever reason we do stick with the 'mushrooms' with a simple redesign we should still be able to get much more 'bang for our buck'. Looking at the cut out below, the 'mushroom tubs' themselves look easily big enough to insert another row giving 9 missiles per 'tub' and it looks as if there could even be room for 12, which would give you a very respectable 18 or 24 missiles forward. If we were then to add another couple of 'tubs' amidships in place of the MK41, or god forbid ditch an ISO, then even without lengthening or substantially modifying the design we would have a respectable load out of 36, or 48 missiles which would give it an effective war fighting role and one at which it could be well up to the job.

T31 RN Mushrooms - Best.jpg

[Aethulwulf]

Firstly, the CAMM ER programme is at risk, mainly due to Italian politics.

https://www.janes.com/article/83562/ita ... me-at-risk

Secondly, the grapevine is saying that MOD expects the same three consortia as before to respond to the T31 PQQ.

And finally, I suspect/guess the desire to reuse the "mushrooms" is driven by the wish to avoid any trial and re-qualification costs. Yes you could probably squeeze quite a few more CAMM cells into the current unit, but that might trigger a need for more launch trials and safety qualification.

[Poiuytrewq]

the grapevine is saying that MOD expects the same three consortia as before to respond to the T31 PQQ.

Has the third bidder been confirmed as the German consortium? Any idea what design they initially proposed?

[Lord Jim]

Well if the T-31e is the Leander there are a couple of things I would change. Installing a Mk8 is a false economy and it is the wrong weapon for the ship. IT would be far better is a medium sized gun, be it a 76mm or 57mm were installed in my opinion. Between the two I would go for the 57mm because of its greater flexibility. Many of its supposed shortcoming have been removed through worked carried out by the US with regards to its range, accuracy and lethality, and as far as a weapon systems is concerned you can cut your cloth to match your budget. More controversially I would also purchase this weapon for both the B2 Rivers and wait for it, the T-45s. NGFC has its place but can anyone see the RN send one of it six T-45s close in to an enemy coastline to engage in such a mission? At its full fat specification the 57mm is a superior CIWS that the Phalanx and a far better anti air weapon that the Mk8. With the improved ammunition if a enemy ship can be seen optically it can be engaged. Obviously for the B2 Rivers a far simpler version would be needed but for the T-31e I would go for the full fat version as well as I see it as the platforms primary weapon systems covering CIWS, Anti air and anti surface roles. Now to Sea Ceptor. Once again I am bringing up the "Marmite", topic of ExLS and in particular the three cell standalone version. This is basically a plug and play system with each able to hold twelve Sea Ceptor in a very compact launcher. Let me suggest that the T-31e is plumbed in for two of these, and they can be installed when required. With the RN now regained operating bases further afield it would be a simple option that is a T-31e was tasked to enter a higher threat zone it could carry out a "Pit stop" and have one or both installed, in a very timely fashion. This ExLS is also very compact compared to the use of the beloved "Mushrooms" so in theory you could have a T-31e built with twelve of the latter permanently and plumbed for the two ExLS forward say allowing a war loadout of 36. I do not think the RFI is set in stone with the MDP going on. There is a recognised shortfall in escorts and this is one of the areas the MDP is looking at. Additional T-26 are unaffordable so the T-31e Leander is really the only game in town and spend a relatively small amount of extra cast like Ron 5 has suggested is really the only option if the RM wants to increase its escort force instead of introducing the UK equivalent of a USCG High Endurance Coast Guard Cutter.

[Poiuytrewq]

I'm suggesting a full width hangar. You and and I think alike, I've scratched my head over the 30mm,

I worked on this a while ago and I think I have the solution. It's very simple really.

Normally I would mock it up and show you but I can't as doing that has now been banned and we 'have been warned' so the post will just be deleted

[Lord Jim]

Why was producing illustrations of possible configurations banned?!?!? Seems absolutely daft and as they say "A picture paints a thousand words". Should we do a petition to bring them back?

[Poiuytrewq]

Why was producing illustrations of possible configurations banned?!?!? Seems absolutely daft and as they say "A picture paints a thousand words". Should we do a petition to bring them back?

You start it and I'll sign it.

I understand fantasy can go too far and it may stifle debate at times or piss members off if they want to discuss something else but the same could be said of the retweets about ukuleles or half drowned pigeons.

Owing to the fact that Ron has a head scratcher of a technical issue that I may have the solution for and due to the ban I am not able to mock it up and show him, I would sugest the ban is now stifling debate

[ArmChairCivvy]

I think there has been some miscommunication and somehow different configs for **real** base designs got lumped together with these "fantasy" things of which some are totally left of the field. I don't think (?) that was the intention.

[Poiuytrewq]

I think there has been some miscommunication and somehow different configs for **real** base designs got lumped together with these "fantasy" things of which some are totally left of the field. I don't think (?) that was the intention.

Let's be honest, as it was all believed to be fantasy there was no inclination to ensure restraint with a self policing format.

Mocking up alterations to existing designs within reason would seem like a rule that could be easily enforced.

Anything clean sheet or too outlandish could be moved across to fantasy to keep the regular threads clear.

[Aethulwulf]

the grapevine is saying that MOD expects the same three consortia as before to respond to the T31 PQQ.

Has the third bidder been confirmed as the German consortium? Any idea what design they initially proposed?

Jane's has reported that it is 'rumoured' that the third bidding teams was Atlas/TKMS. If true, then a TKMS design would to be expected.

But why is this third bidder keeping so silent?

One answer might be that MOD would like all bidders to remain silent. I would not be surprised if MOD wants to keep a tight lid on all information, so that the selection is kept within the walls of MOD, and not out in the open in a public debate. (If so, then CL and Babcock might have had a bit of a ticking off; may explain the rolling back of the public side of the Babcock bid.)

Another answer might be contractual. As has been pointed out, between CL and Babcock most of the UK shipyards appear to be committed, leaving none left for a third bidder. However, were this third bidder to win, then I would not be surprised for all the shipyards then to want to become a partner of the winning bid. A few such tentative contractual arrangements might already be in place, or at least have been discussed. But it would be very understandable for all parties to want to keep this quite, so as not to publicly undermine their primary bids.

[ArmChairCivvy]

If true, then a TKMS design would to be expected.

But why is this third bidder keeping so silent?

If true, then there might be other potential reasons to keep a low profile... like this tangled web of ownership and key client:
"UAE-based company contracted to build warships for Israeli Navy
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,734 ... 97,00.html

4 Dec 2016 - Abu Dhabi MAR, that owns ThyssenKrupp's Kiel shipyard, will build the hull of four Sa'ar 6-class corvette warships "

Or simply just nothing better to do to hand:
"consortium of the German companies ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and Lürssen, whose executives were told by the government this month [ a news piece in March, by Defencenews] that their joint offering had been eliminated from the race to the build the Mehrzweckkampfschiff 180."

[Lord Jim]

If someone posted a mock up of a carrier that could fly or operate as a submarine I would agree that was pure fantasy and has no place here but the designs I have seen have been intelligently put together, mote often than not being based on an existing or proposed design from Industry and so give a clear picture of what people are discussing, often leading to those discussions being far more interesting and engaging. Pease can we have some common sense here and allow sensible ideas to be given form. Seeing how the various forms of Leander Ron 5 has been describing would be wonderful just for a start. Please could the moderators rethink this. If someone posts a mock up of a battleship that can move like a hovercraft remove it and give the poster a warning by all means, but Poiuytrewq especially has gone to great lengths to give actuate form to peoples suggestions as well as his own and these have enriched the debate.

[donald_of_tokyo]

There's three arguments that I refuse to accept:

1. Kit that costs more is automatically better than kit that costs less. That's absolute bollox as can be seen on any trip to a shopping mall or defence exhibition. That would say all American ships are automatically better than everyone elses because they cost more. Ha, let me introduce you to the LCS.

2. Kit that doesn't have a great international sales record is inferior. More bollox. Defence kit is bought every day for dozens of reasons that have zero to do with technical excellence. If anything purchased has an explanation as to why it was selected, fine. But without explanation, you cannot assume technical superiority.

3. Kit that uses more modern technology is inherently better than kit that doesn't. Somebody said rifled guns immediately made all smoothbores obsolete yet over on the tank thread, everyone says Leopard has a better gun than Challenger. It's the implementation of any technology that matters, not the technology itself.

First of all, thanks for your reply, and most of all, I think your proposal direction is positive and I like it. We do have several issue we agree to disagree, but that's it, no problem as I understand.

<On Leander>
I have no objection to your three items. Following is my point:

- costing of ship building between France and UK looks similar, as I understand. (It differs a lot in USA, as well as inAustralia (Hunt class vs City class), or in Japan. It depends also on "what is included"). This is the reason I am comparing Leander with FTI, not LCS, nor RAN Hunt class, nor JMSDF FFM.

- We already had a long discussion 2-3 years ago with Shark-bait-san and you and others on equipment costs, and my conclusion is that summing up each equipment never can explain the cost difference. I have an impression it is x3 or even x5, and I "think" it is because of integration into CMS.

- CMS license cost must differ a lot between River B2 and T26, for sure. I am not surprised it differs by x10. I understand "CMS-1" as a "scalable CMS (by BAE)" is equivalent to "RedHat Linux server package with blah-blah support". If so, costing shall be the same when you buy "server + software" package off the shelf. Cost differs a lot depending on the CPU power, memory size, application-software, including their maintenance / upgrade load.

One thing to add is, I fear "too much addition" to Leander may hit the well-known problem ; "too compact/complex ship's cost start rising because of integration difficulty". I am looking at Leander as a 3650t FLD ship, as a 250M GBP average cost (= ~210M GBP unit cost) ship, which is 15% smaller in weight and less than half in unit cost of a 4200t FLD/470M GBP unit cost FTI. I think FTI is already densely packed. So, similar level of equipping will not be easy.

<On my stance>
Being optimistic in cost estimation is not the way I go. I personally had little difficulty in the past, regarding the costs of, say, T26. When it raised a lot (forcing reduction in hull number 13 --> 8), what I thought was "as expected" not "a surprise". (*1). T26 is capable than FREMM, aiming at more quiet hull, has mission bay, and is larger. Thus T26 being 20-30% expensive than FREMM (in unit cost) is no surprise.

Your Super Leander is nearly as capable as FTI in ASW, less in AAW but sufficient for a frigate, and similarly capable in other tasks, and FTI is 15% larger than Leander. So, 350-380M GBP (75% of 470M) with CAPTAS and 24 CAMM, without Mk.41 nor Merlin, is my bet. Not saying I am correct. Just saying I have a different point of view.

This is forum, to share news, informations, and different point of views.


*: I did not believe the "steel is cheap and air is free" argument. It is true, but it works only if you keep the additional space "empty", which is almost impossible in warship. See Bay class, it works well. But, it is with very limited damage control standard = not much different from merchant vessel. Very different from a warship.

[NickC]

*: I did not believe the "steel is cheap and air is free" argument. It is true, but it works only if you keep the additional space "empty", which is almost impossible in warship. See Bay class, it works well. But, it is with very limited damage control standard = not much different from merchant vessel. Very different from a warship.

Donald-san apologies if answered before why do you not believe "steel is cheap and air is free" argument.

I take the opposite view based on the Danish Abslon and Iver Huitfeldt class ship designs.

The Iver Huitfeldt 6,600 ton class was $340M per ship, understand the basic hull was built in eastern European shipyard and some of the equipment was donated from previous ships using the Stanflex modules, but result a first class AAW frigate/destroyer and passed FOST trials, with outstanding results, as with full ship shock trials with underwater explosions.

[Tempest414]

Looking at the cut out below, the 'mushroom tubs' themselves look easily big enough to insert another row giving 9 missiles per 'tub' and it looks as if there could even be room for 12, which would give you a very respectable 18 or 24 missiles forward.

Looking at the tubs on Leander they look to be about 3.5 meters by 3 meters and when we then take a look at land ceptor which has 12 CAMM fitted on a 2.5 meter HX-77 truck so for me each tub should be able to carry 12 to 15 CAMM. As for not incurring more launch trials I can't see how we will get away from having to do launch trials from a new ship

[Aethulwulf]

FT is reporting on T31...

https://www.ft.com/content/a8181102-ce1 ... ad351828ab

At least two industry consortiums are understood to be ready to take part in the frigate bidding. Babcock International and Thales, the defence companies, are expected to bid using a design based on one currently in use by the Danish navy. Another includes BAE Systems, Britain’s largest defence contractor, but will be led by Cammell Laird. A third consortium, led by Atlas Elektronik UK, could also decide to take part.

It the FT is correct, the Arrowhead 140 from Babcock is still in play.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald-san apologies if answered before why do you not believe "steel is cheap and air is free" argument.

I take the opposite view based on the Danish Abslon and Iver Huitfeldt class ship designs.

The Iver Huitfeldt 6,600 ton class was $340M per ship, understand the basic hull was built in eastern European shipyard and some of the equipment was donated from previous ships using the Stanflex modules, but result a first class AAW frigate/destroyer and passed FOST trials, with outstanding results, as with full ship shock trials with underwater explosions.

Good point.

Firstly, I doubt the Iver Huitfeldt's cost, if built in UK. Those ship has very different design policy.
- Hull production and armament installation are completely separated.
- Danish navy is doing the systems integration by their own. RN will never.
- Getting a APAR-level mini-AEGIS AAW escort with that cheap cost must be a great success. But even though many navies have inspected the ship, none buy it. So, surely there are issues/drawbacks.

Secondly, FOST and FSST is exactly what it means, and not qualifying the ship itself.
- FOST is for every ship. Not only escorts, but Tide class oilers and River class OPV also passes (or fails) FOST. I understand it is more a crew and equipment readiness drill, "can you/the ship do what you are expected to do?". And "what is expected" differs ship-by-ship.
- FSST is shock test. Not only escorts, but also American LPD and LCS go though it. Iver Huitfeldt has a special feature, "merchant-ship based equipments mounted on shock-reduced island". It may be working well, good. Can anyone show what shock level Iver Huitfeldt has experienced in the FSST?

In short, I do not know why Iver Huitfeldt's was so cheap for Danish navy. Also the "actual cost" is said to be NOT as cheap as Danish claims. Many rumors are there. In other words, I am not convinced it is cheap, if built in UK.

On the other hand, "steel is cheap and air is free" argument is of course true, but in 99% of the cases, they fail to achieve it. True but fail. For example, see T31e. It was enlarge a lot from the original Khareef, from 2700t FLD to 3700t FLD. But, it's cost is not much different from typical heavy corvette. I think Leander is a "steel is cheap and air is free" based ship, and its fighting capability shall be the same to Khareef.

But, many here starts to state, "because it is 3700t FLD hull large, it is too much underarmed, we shall add A and B, and more". Typical proposals which is the enemy of "steel is cheap and air is free" argument.