UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 19 Oct 2018, 19:09

If they pushed half of the T-31e budget into the T-26 to get at least one extra and the remainder into the MHPC programme to kick start it I would be happy.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 19 Oct 2018, 20:12

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Proposal (personal opinion)
If T31e program is going, I love Leander as a candidate. As Leander is ~10% smaller than FTI, I think it shall be "one point less than" FTI. For example, it can be a "single task" light frigate.
- GP version: as T31e RFI + hull-sonar and torpedo-defense (with 57/76mm gun, 2x 30mm gun, 12 CAMM, 1x CIWS)
- ASW version: with CAPTAS4CI added. Omit the mission bay, and replace the 57/76 mm gun with 30mm, while increase CAMM twice (say 12 --> 24). With better AAW, I shall even omit CIWS. (2x 30mm gun, 24 CAMM only).

GP version is only GP (such as T21), and ASW version is only ASW (such as T22). This is important also to make the crew size small, to enable more hulls to be deployed more actively.


2 x GP version and 3 x ASW version then please, if it can be done for £1.25 bn

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 19 Oct 2018, 20:34

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Not the biggest design challenge in the world.
Have you come up with a solution yet?


I think it's matter of the least worse choice. Forward of the bridge is too wet. Abeam the bridge obstructs sight lines. Abeam the Mk 41 too hot. Aft of the Mk 41, fouls crane and/or RAS station.

So I'm left with small sponsons abeam the main mast.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5838
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SKB » 19 Oct 2018, 20:48

Btw, why are the T26's called the "City" class, when all the T42's were cities too and they were known as the "Sheffield Class" after the lead ship?
Shouldn't the T26 be called the "Glasgow Class" instead?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 19 Oct 2018, 21:16

Ron5 wrote:
I think it's matter of the least worse choice. Forward of the bridge is too wet. Abeam the bridge obstructs sight lines. Abeam the Mk 41 too hot. Aft of the Mk 41, fouls crane and/or RAS station.

So I'm left with small sponsons abeam the main mast.
Solid, logical reasoning but as you say not an ideal location.

How important would you say it is to maintain their current location on your Super Leander concept? Worth spending extra to leave them where they are?

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 502
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Dahedd » 19 Oct 2018, 21:37

SKB wrote:Does New Zealand need some new ships? Or perhaps someone else? Japan?! *rubs palms*


New Zealand is far more likely to buy a type 31e I'd have thought given their limited funds. The T26 is just too much for them (even a £500m GP version)

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 20 Oct 2018, 08:40

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
I think it's matter of the least worse choice. Forward of the bridge is too wet. Abeam the bridge obstructs sight lines. Abeam the Mk 41 too hot. Aft of the Mk 41, fouls crane and/or RAS station.

So I'm left with small sponsons abeam the main mast.
Solid, logical reasoning but as you say not an ideal location.

How important would you say it is to maintain their current location on your Super Leander concept? Worth spending extra to leave them where they are?


No. The major point about the 30mm are that they are cheap and cheerful so their installation or replacement cannot become expensive.

I think the Leanders rather narrow beam precludes maintaining them at their current position but pushed further outboard. I don't think there's enough lateral stability to allow that. If they are not pushed outboard then not enough full height hangar width is created for my liking. So they need to move.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 20 Oct 2018, 08:52

Ron5 wrote:I think the Leanders rather narrow beam precludes maintaining them at their current position but pushed further outboard. I don't think there's enough lateral stability to allow that. If they are not pushed outboard then not enough full height hangar width is created for my liking. So they need to move.
Thanks Ron,

Its a pity as the current location of the 30mm's is pretty much optimum but I think there is a solution. It's expensive and not a minor fix but it would make for a better balanced design at the end of the day in my opinion.

Not being able to illustrate the possible solution is irritating....

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 20 Oct 2018, 08:58

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I think the Leanders rather narrow beam precludes maintaining them at their current position but pushed further outboard. I don't think there's enough lateral stability to allow that. If they are not pushed outboard then not enough full height hangar width is created for my liking. So they need to move.
Thanks Ron,

Its a pity as the current location of the 30mm's is pretty much optimum but I think there is a solution. It's expensive and not a minor fix but it would make for a better balanced design at the end of the day in my opinion.

Not being able to illustrate the possible solution is irritating....


Might be better to go for a smaller gun. Not necessarily smaller caliber but smaller in size. Maybe without the manned option.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 20 Oct 2018, 09:12

Ron5 wrote:Might be better to go for a smaller gun. Not necessarily smaller caliber but smaller in size. Maybe without the manned option.
That would be much cheaper than my solution :thumbup:

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 20 Oct 2018, 09:18

Wouldn't one of these be fun instead of a Wildcat?

Image

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 20 Oct 2018, 09:34

Ron5 wrote:Wouldn't one of these be fun instead of a Wildcat?

It's definitely not going to fit through that door :problem:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 20 Oct 2018, 09:47

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Wouldn't one of these be fun instead of a Wildcat?

It's definitely not going to fit through that door :problem:


Isn't it the marinised v-280 where the whole rotter and wing set up swing over the hull like on the v-22s just smaller

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 20 Oct 2018, 09:52

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Wouldn't one of these be fun instead of a Wildcat?

It's definitely not going to fit through that door :problem:
Exactly because there is one already in that hanger :thumbup:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 20 Oct 2018, 10:15

Poiuytrewq wrote:Exactly because there is one already in that hanger

Missed that! Impressive if it can be done - and would be an interesting addition to capability.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 20 Oct 2018, 10:24

One thing I am surprised at with the v-280 family is that I havnt seen them come forward with a larger design to compet with the v-22 as a next gen.

Iv seen they are developing the v-254 UAV which has a lot of potential but the size of the v-280 limits it from certain roles that at the moment only v-22s can cover in the tilt rota market

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Oct 2018, 12:11

I wonder if they will revisit that larger four rotor twin wing thingy seen in a few movies, as a future Chinook or even partial
C-130 replacement.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 20 Oct 2018, 12:16

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder if they will revisit that larger four rotor twin wing thingy seen in a few movies, as a future Chinook or even partial
C-130 replacement.


That would be very interesting and could be a very useful addition for land forces, the only down side with it is that no flat top or other vessel could operate it, I'd imagine it'd be too heavy for most decks and even if no it'd be too large to take below to perform maintainence.
With this in mind chinooks or similar could stay around for carrier and LHD use

Found these concepts from belling on the 4 tilterotor setups.
The smaller sits nicely between a chinook and a 130J Hercules for its lift capacity, the larger of the 2 sits between 130J Hercules and a A400M altas.
If the MOD did ever go down this route I could seem them going for the smaller to replace most of the chinook fleet as you say.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 20 Oct 2018, 12:59

Moved across...
Caribbean wrote:So what are your criteria for "properly"?
I belive the £250m T31 programme is a compromise between the OPV market and the Frigate market. I think it's a dangerous compromise as in a conflict situation such vessels will be used to plug gaps and the danger of mission creep is huge.

Ron's Super Leander (TM) concept proves to kit it out properly will cost roughly £350m. That would be a more sensible starting point but it's still very much a budget option. In my opinion the UK needs to build a vessel at a FTI/PPA equivalent price point that is better than the competition and the easiest way to do that is to start with the T26 hull.
Jake1992 wrote:A smaller T26 with out the dedicated mission bay say a combine hanger and mission space, Merlin flight deck reduced asw and optional weapons fit would be just as flexible as the FTI. Could this be done for around £450-£500m it's hard to say but I believe it could be do able.
I agree with this apart from the smaller bit. Maybe it could be shortened to 140m and with a complete change of propulsion it would make it easier but if the 20.8m beam had to be changed to compensate for the shorter LOA then costs will go through the roof. I think maintaining the entire T26 hull form would be wise and simply reconfigure the superstructure from amidships aft to the flight deck. Remove the misson bay, make it double Merlin capable with 2 landing spots, add 2 or 3 davit mounted RHIBs and it's there.
Jake1992 wrote:What we need are 3 vessels for 3 export markets -
1 - T26 for hight end tier 1 market

2 - smaller stripped down T26 based vessel as descused above for the mid range tier 2 market

3 - a flexible Venair design that can do from 70m to 115m for the OPV multi mission sloop or covert market
We are virtually in complete agreement here.

This would give RN all the options needed to rebalance the fleet within current budgets.

As an aside, the Venari 95 with a change of bow angle comes in at 103m LOA. Anyone recognise that figure? I can't post the concept but I think it looks terrific. Fully kitted out it has a 76mm gun, 2x 30mm's, 24 CAMM, space for 8 Mk41 cells, Artisan, Wildcat hanger, Merlin capable flight deck, CB90/LCVP/LCAC capable working deck and a garage under the flight deck with over 400 sqm of space. With no stern ramp it would be TAS/VDS capable.

Of course the Venari 95 would work just as well with 3x30mm's and Terma SCANTER 4100. The crucial point is its reconfigurable and scalable design.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 20 Oct 2018, 14:36

Poiuytrewq wrote:...In my opinion the UK needs to build a vessel at a FTI/PPA equivalent price point that is better than the competition and the easiest way to do that is to start with the T26 hull.
Jake1992 wrote:A smaller T26 with out the dedicated mission bay say a combine hanger and mission space, Merlin flight deck reduced asw and optional weapons fit would be just as flexible as the FTI. Could this be done for around £450-£500m it's hard to say but I believe it could be do able.
I agree with this apart from the smaller bit. Maybe it could be shortened to 140m and with a complete change of propulsion it would make it easier but if the 20.8m beam had to be changed to compensate for the shorter LOA then costs will go through the roof. I think maintaining the entire T26 hull form would be wise and simply reconfigure the superstructure from amidships aft to the flight deck. Remove the misson bay, make it double Merlin capable with 2 landing spots, add 2 or 3 davit mounted RHIBs and it's there.
Shortening T26 is very difficult. If the beam unchanged, top speed will decrease with shorter hull, and if beam is to be changed, it is complete redesign. Its relation to T26 will be similar to that between French FREMM vs FTI.
Jake1992 wrote:What we need are 3 vessels for 3 export markets -
1 - T26 for hight end tier 1 market
2 - smaller stripped down T26 based vessel as descused above for the mid range tier 2 market
3 - a flexible Venair design that can do from 70m to 115m for the OPV multi mission sloop or covert market
T26 + Venator-110-level light frigate (=mid range tier 2 market) pair looks nice at the first glance. But if there is such money, I think RN should have proceeded with "13 T26" plan.

Total project cost for 5 FTI is 3.3B GBP. If divided with 750M GBP unit cost of T26, it is 4.4 hull equivalent. With improved efficiency, I think the "3.3B GBP" can easily pay for the 5 T26. And I think RN (and many here) will prefer 13 T26 than, 8 T26 + 5 Venator 110. So, personally I feel that the "1,2,3 plan" is good in paper but highly unlikely in reality, even if there are money.

#Interesting France has done it to. I guess it is to keep the design team active and to add a tier-2 model for export.

If T31e is to proceeded, UK will have;
A1 - T26 for hight end tier 1 market
A2 - Leander/Khareef for light light-frigate (tier-2 lower) and corvette market.
Not bad, I think. T31 program is quite well designed. Total cost which is only equivalent to 1.75 T26, and the requirement lower to cope with its "250M GBP average costs" (which virtually means 200-220M GBP unit cost, even with "modified existing design" proposals, such as Leander).
Poiuytrewq wrote:As an aside, the Venari 95 with a change of bow angle comes in at 103m LOA. Anyone recognise that figure? I can't post the concept but I think it looks terrific. Fully kitted out it has a 76mm gun, 2x 30mm's, 24 CAMM, space for 8 Mk41 cells, Artisan, Wildcat hanger, Merlin capable flight deck, CB90/LCVP/LCAC capable working deck and a garage under the flight deck with over 400 sqm of space. With no stern ramp it would be TAS/VDS capable.
Although interesting by its own, I think you are re-inventing Leander here. The only difference is the midship mission bays replaced with "working deck and a garage". As these two are space consuming, and 103m LOA is shorter than Leander, the proposed "Venari-103" will be significantly fatter, and only be 20 knots top speed with 2-diesel propulsion, or requiring a 4 diesel CODAD drive train similar to FTI. Also it is a new design. In other words, it will be more expensive than Leander.
Of course the Venari 95 would work just as well with 3x30mm's and Terma SCANTER 4100. The crucial point is its reconfigurable and scalable design.
Uhmmm. Is "reconfigurable and scalable" so important? The reason I say so is, I think a MHC Venari (85 or 90) with "1x30mm and Terma SCANTER 4100", and a top speed of 20 or even 18 knots, will be good MHC candidate. Making it "more Leander like" will require more higher end systems, which is un-needed for MHC task. In other words, I'm afraid there is only a little commonality between your proposed Venari-103 and Venari-85/90 (as what I think shall be).

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 20 Oct 2018, 16:32

Thanks Donald, I think we are miles apart here,
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Shortening T26 is very difficult.
Agreed
If the beam unchanged, top speed will decrease with shorter hull,
Yes but if the propulsion system is to be changed that could be mitigated.
...if beam is to be changed, it is complete redesign.
Agreed, I am not proposing to shorten the T26 hull.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:But if there is such money, I think RN should have proceeded with "13 T26" plan.
That is in effect what Jake1992 and I are proposing. The difference is to have a less expensive variant to allow RN to get the number of Frigates it needs within budget.
Total project cost for 5 FTI is 3.3B GBP. If divided with 750M GBP unit cost of T26, it is 4.4 hull equivalent. With improved efficiency, I think the "3.3B GBP" can easily pay for the 5 T26. And I think RN (and many here) will prefer 13 T26 than, 8 T26 + 5 Venator 110. So, personally I feel that the "1,2,3 plan" is good in paper but highly unlikely in reality, even if there are money
Where did Venator come from?

The proposal is to use the existing budget to procure as many T26 based Frigates as possible.

#Interesting France has done it to. I guess it is to keep the design team active and to add a tier-2 model for export.
We should do the same with the Tier2 model based on a T26 hull.

If T31e is to proceeded, UK will have;
A1 - T26 for hight end tier 1 market
A2 - Leander/Khareef for light light-frigate (tier-2 lower) and corvette market.
Not bad, I think.
Not great either. How many of the worlds top navies are currently replacing Tier1 Frigates with stretched OPV's with the unit price set at half the cost of an FTI?

donald_of_tokyo wrote:....I think you are re-inventing Leander here.
I hope not, I don't like the original why would I want to reinvent it :D
The only difference is the midship mission bays replaced with "working deck and a garage".
I would suggest Venari's working deck and garage is much more practical than Leanders oddly shaped mission spaces. With RHIBs embarked how much space does Leander have?
As these two are space consuming, and 103m LOA is shorter than Leander, the proposed "Venari-103" will be significantly fatter, and only be 20 knots top speed with 2-diesel propulsion, or requiring a 4 diesel CODAD drive train similar to FTI.
The Venari's are all measured at the water line as you are aware. What I have proposed is changing the bow angle to help increase speed and efficiency. With this change in bow angle the LOA increases to 103m. No other changes. This makes the Venari a more suitable candidate for MHPC than MHC.

A Venari measuring 103m X 16m is very similar to the Holland Class at 108m X 16m. A Venari 100 with the modified bow angle would have identical dimensions to the Holland Class. Widely regarded as one of best balanced patrol vessels afloat the Holland Class has a top speed of 22knts, CODOE propulsion and a unit cost of around $150m. I would suggest this is an excellent benchmark for the Venari series even if the cost ended up being £150m rather than $150m.
Also it is a new design. In other words, it will be more expensive than Leander.
Based on what. If the unit cost of a base Venari is £150m and the unit cost of a base Leander is £200m+ what are you going to do to Venari to make it more expensive?

Any R&D costs could be recouped from the sale of the RB2's.

In my opinion the Venari's are much more versatile than Leander, I actually think Leander is fairly expensive for what it offers.

For example in a HADR role Leander is supposed to able to carry 8 ISO's. Unfortunately with 4 RHIBs and a Wildcat embarked that number drops to 1 or 2 ISO's. Venari on the other hand can embark a Wildcat, 6 ISO's on the working deck and still have over 400sqm of space for other HADR equipment or ISO's in the garage under the flight deck. The working deck is large enough to embark multiple LCVPs to help get equipment ashore if the dock facilities have been damaged.

Could an enlarged Venari replace the Bay in the Caribbean in both the patrol and Hurricane relief roles?
image.jpg

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Uhmmm. Is "reconfigurable and scalable" so important?
I believe so, it's gives RN the ability to tailor it's low end fleet within an assured cost envelope and introduces welcome commonality into the fleet.
The reason I say so is, I think a MHC Venari (85 or 90) with "1x30mm and Terma SCANTER 4100", and a top speed of 20 or even 18 knots, will be good MHC candidate. Making it "more Leander like" will require more higher end systems, which is un-needed for MHC task.
Only fit the higher end systems if required. That's the beauty of being reconfigurable and scalable.

This would be a lot quicker if I could illustrate what we are discussing.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

NickC
Member
Posts: 550
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 20 Oct 2018, 16:38

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I think the Leanders rather narrow beam precludes maintaining them at their current position but pushed further outboard. I don't think there's enough lateral stability to allow that. If they are not pushed outboard then not enough full height hangar width is created for my liking. So they need to move.
Thanks Ron,

Its a pity as the current location of the 30mm's is pretty much optimum but I think there is a solution. It's expensive and not a minor fix but it would make for a better balanced design at the end of the day in my opinion.

Not being able to illustrate the possible solution is irritating....


My understanding is that the DS30 Mk 2 is fitted with the US ATK MK44 30x173mm BUSHMASTER Chain Gun, using the water cooled barrel has an approx RPM of 250 but DS30 uses an uncooled barrel so only able to fire a limited number of bursts of ~ 20 rounds for of max of 5 seconds before cooling cycle required, am I correct in thinking the DS30 OK for police actions, but not much else ?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 20 Oct 2018, 17:07

Thanks.
Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:But if there is such money, I think RN should have proceeded with "13 T26" plan.
That is in effect what Jake1992 and I are proposing. The difference is to have a less expensive variant to allow RN to get the number of Frigates it needs within budget..
...The proposal is to use the existing budget to procure as many T26 based Frigates as possible.
Then, I have no objection. But, I bet continuing T26 will be much cheaper. It is hull 9-13, where the learning curve is saturated and the lowest unit cost is achieved. Why reset it? Banning VLS or cutting S2087, I will still call it a T26. Touching propulsion system may not pay, I guess.
We should do the same with the Tier2 model based on a T26 hull.
Stripped off T26 will never be as cheap as FTI, I'm afraid. It will still be a tier-1 escort, just "under-armed".
How many of the worlds top navies are currently replacing Tier1 Frigates with stretched OPV's with the unit price set at half the cost of an FTI?
Totally agree. For me there is no contradiction with your idea. I am continuously saying RN is NOT replacing 5 T23GPs with frigates. By T31e program, they are cutting frigate number from 13 to 8, and adding a "modern Floreal-like ship" (which is not a frigate, in my idea) to compensate the 5. Cost tells us so.

This is why I push "1 more T26 and 3-4 OPV-Hs" or "2 more T26s" as my favorite option. (I push Leander only if T31e is to continue). This is in line of "use the existing budget to procure as many T26 based Frigates as possible". :thumbup:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:....I think you are re-inventing Leander here.
I hope not, I don't like the original why would I want to reinvent it..
Also it is a new design. In other words, it will be more expensive than Leander.
Based on what.
I agree to your "difference in mission bay" and I also agree Venari's arrangement is much better than Leander. What I do not agree is, on the cost estimation of the heavily armed Venari version. For example, damage control level will be much lower in MHC Venari than in Leander, which I think is the cause of you estimating Venari shall be cheaper than Leander.

I agree this is critically important to make MHC Venari cheap.

Adding bunches of armaments on low damage control ship is something I think must be avoided. And, if so, the "heavily armed Venari" must be made to high damage control standard, and hence must be almost independent design, and more expensive than Leander. This is my point.

For me, a warship armed to fight, and a support ship armed for selfdefense is completely different. The former will be under threat for long period, while the latter will be so only in some critical occasions. "Days under threat" may differ by more than an order of magnitude.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Uhmmm. Is "reconfigurable and scalable" so important?
I believe so, it's gives RN the ability to tailor it's low end fleet within an assured cost envelope and introduces welcome commonality into the fleet...Only fit the higher end systems if required. That's the beauty of being reconfigurable and scalable.
Exactly here is we disagree.

I have big difficulty when someone says, "adding CAMM to Bay, Venari, or even Points, and you can have a frigate". No, I do not think so. It will be a vulnerable match-box, eventually killing many of the crews onboard. If not, why RN is building T45 and T26 with high-end military standard?



PS Please forget "Venator". I've just use it as UK version of FTI, equivalent. If you are talking about T26 lite, it is just lightly-armed T26 and not an independent design in my view.

PS2 Here I regard Leander as a "ship armed as a corvette, with a smallest-level of light-frigate hull for long range/endurance, built to NATO frigate standard". In comparison, Venari is an OPV-levels standard ship, but with ~3000t FLD displacement and bulky hull to carry many MCM drones and HADR kits.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 20 Oct 2018, 17:53

So, as I understand it, your proposal is that we build more T26, but at just over half the cost. Is that some wavey-hand magic trick or something? I doubt you could knock the cost down to £450m even if you removed ALL the weapons systems, the sensors, comms. gear, BAE's profit margin and, probably, the engines.
Poiuytrewq wrote:I belive the £250m T31 programme is a compromise between the OPV market and the Frigate market. I think it's a dangerous compromise as in a conflict situation such vessels will be used to plug gaps and the danger of mission creep is huge.

[quote=]How many of the worlds top navies are currently replacing Tier1 Frigates with stretched OPV's with the unit price set at half the cost of an FTI?[/quote]

This is where you have got it wrong. No-one is looking at moving from a Tier 1 frigate to a T31, but a lot are looking at upgrading from OPV's to low end frigates. The T31 is clearly differentiated from an OPV, costing around 3 to 4 times as much. You are all saying that the T31 can't be the same as an FTI, because the FTI costs twice as much as the T31, so I am using exactly the same argument as you to demonstrate why the T31 CANNOT be considered a "stretched OPV". If you think that my argument is invalid, then so is yours.

Also, if there is any platform less suitable than the BAE Corvette to base a new frigate design on, then it's the Venari. Fine for an MCM/ OPV/ Auxiliary, but frankly not worth wasting any more time on as a "frigate".
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 20 Oct 2018, 18:21

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Then, I have no objection....Banning VLS or cutting S2087, I will still call it a T26. Touching propulsion system may not pay, I guess.
I think what we call it isn't important, what is important is getting as many T26 hulls in the water as possible.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Stripped off T26 will never be as cheap as FTI, I'm afraid. It will still be a tier-1 escort, just "under-armed".
Under armed compared to what? Leander? In that case 12CAMM and a medium calibre gun will comparable. It's Leander that they would be replacing.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Totally agree. For me there is no contradiction with your idea
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I agree to your "difference in mission bay" and I also agree Venari's arrangement is much better than Leander
Maybe we aren't as far apart as I thought :thumbup:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Adding bunches of armaments on low damage control ship is something I think must be avoided. And, if so, the "heavily armed Venari" must be made to high damage control standard, and hence must be almost independent design, and more expensive than Leander. This is my point.
I would only add self defence armament to the Venari's. This would be tailored to the perceived threat environment, High,Moderate,Low. The Venari's would be Global patrol vessels not combatants apart from the Combat MCMV which would take on a combatant role.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I have big difficulty when someone says, "adding CAMM to Bay, Venari, or even Points, and you can have a frigate". No, I do not think so. It will be a vulnerable match-box, eventually killing many of the crews onboard. If not, why RN is building T45 and T26 with high-end military standard?
How many crew will be killed when an unarmed vessel is attacked? I think the days of Royal Navy vessels crossing the globe with nothing more than a 30mm are coming to an end, and they should be. The widespread proliferation of supersonic and hypersonic missiles will increase over time to the point were even Phalanx won't be sufficient. This may yet be decades away but we need to start planning for it now.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: luckner, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 21 guests