Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[serge750]

Instead of the leander T31, (or lower the number to 3 with abetter weapons fit etc) it's just to keep the numbers up & also keep some ship building in England (Scotlands got the T26 & maybe increase the numbers in time if funds permit with the same slow build rate) would it be a good idea just to design & licence build 5 batch 3 rivers with hanger, small main gun (as suggested before) as they IMO should just be used for local flag waving etc, then when these are built use this English yard armed with this experience build a T45 replacement maybe with a bit of help from bae

[donald_of_tokyo]

I didn't say "big" or "large", I said as big as possible.

Umm, then what is your point?
We know T23 had a hull extension plan, but never executed. So clearly "as big as possible" is defined by cost. In that regard, T21 or T42 could also have been "as big as possible".

Just for clarity, could you please list examples, which ship was NOT build "as big as possible"?

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved across,

Batch1 emphasis on Maritime Sec Ops

Can we justify £1.25bn and 500 crew on five primarily maritime security vessels? As they will be replacing proper Frigates capable of much more than maritime security tasks I think we should aim a bit higher.

easily done for Batch2

Only if we get a second batch. Lots of things have been promised over the years, many haven't materialised.

without the double hangar aspect of it, the multi-purpose mission space is already there

It is, but the A120 also requires the stern ramp to meet the T31 requirement. I am arguing for a simplified superstructure layout to allow for the deletion of the stern ramp which would facilitate the lowering of the flight deck and optimisation of the stern for a TAS.

“Batch 1” role could be easily handled by an extended River class with a Wildcat Hangar - no significant cost for design and I’d argue you’d get 3 of these for the same price as a single T31e plus the overheads of building / designing a new class.

Very true, lots of options for non combatant global patrol vessels but the crucial point is that it doesn't take £250m vessels with 100/120 crew to provide maritime security. It should be half of that.

Does anyone realistically think there will be a Y31 batch 2?

Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's the lack of manpower that is more likely to influence that decision rather than a lack of a few hundred million to build them.

5 T31e OPVs

Are you serious?

5 T26s and 5 T31e OPVs.

Where did those numbers come from?

[Repulse]

Cancel the Type 26 as too costly

Bonkers - why is the T26 too expensive, because of politics, short sighted funding and lack of ambition. Chopping and changing costs money and delivers diddly squat.

[ArmChairCivvy]

if I understand correctly, the slow drum beat for he T26 is to 1] minimise in year expenditure, and 2] ensure that the BAE yard and workers have sufficient work all the way through to the commencement of building the T45 replacement. Therefore, if the last 2 T26 are canned, BAE would have to either 1]¡get some new work in that time frame (perhaps a second batch of Leander, assuming it is selected as the T31), the 2nd batch of T26 build rate is slowed even further (adding to cost), or 3] the T45 replacement programme is brought forward a few years).

Quite. T26 in water in 2025, in service two years later. When the last as per now installed 'tail' leaves service in 2035, out of the first 5 the last one is in water (but not in service).

Solution:
1] Military fitting out of all frigates/ destroyers to be done in the BAES yard (so the work comes to: any number of T26s plus 1/2 times the number of T31s that fits into the time window within which the T23s leave service)
2]Believe in Batch2 of T31s? Hell, yes, Batch1 will be truncated to 3... just to make everyone, and that includes the RN, to believe in the design. Then at least 3 'tails' will go onto the ships that follow
3] Depending on the time scale into which these 5+3+3 can be fitted, the T26AAW will be interleaved into the work prgrm as the next step

[NickC]

@ Donald-san - Thanks for reply, a few questions

Source of your £750M figure for future buy of T26, the MOD engaged in deliberate obscurification to hide build cost by just giving total overall £3.7 B programme cost when announcing order for the first 3 ships. (3,700 less 750 x 3 = 2,250 leaves balance for design + initial cost £1,450M?)

You mention costs of £440M as a baseline guide for future frigate, do you not think UK can match the Japanese 6,000t 30FFM cost of <£400M.

Does the 30FFM have a quiet hull design and silenced engines and MGR.

Cancellation of Type 26, there are precedents thinking of the Type 82.

Radar not GaN, ? Navy Recognition states "To our knowledge, Asahi (25DD) is Japan's first warship (and the world's second after the German F125 and its TRS-4D) to be fitted with an operational GaN-AESA (gallium nitride - active electronically scanned array) Multifunction Radar. Asahi's radar is based on the FCS-3A AESA radar system but uses GaN technology for improved performances. FCS-3A comes with 4x C-band and 4x X-band arrays (two forward and two aft for each).

From <http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rials.html>

[Lord Jim]

Firstly, everyone knows the Treasury controls the UK Defence.

Secondly I do not like the T-31e programme at all. The Royal Navy's future should rely on platforms based around eh T-26 over the long term. If we have to build a T-31e make it a B3 River with better helicopter facilities and a larger gun and possibly better electronics. Also only build three of them at most and look to build the ninth T-26. Build the first two batched of T-26 to the current design and then look to incorporating any of the lessons learned so far by the RN, RAN and RCN regarding their respective T-26 versions. WE are reducing our escort fleet to 14 anyhow as the T-31e is never going ot be a front line platform so accept the reduction and then look to steadily increase both the number of vessels and manpower over the next 25 to 30 years. We need to think long term to provide stability both to the Rn and Ship builders. A long term T-26 programme gives confidence and security to BAe whilst reducing costs. A reduced T-31e programme allows alternative shipyards to get up to speed and be ready fir the MHPC programme.

[dmereifield]

if I understand correctly, the slow drum beat for he T26 is to 1] minimise in year expenditure, and 2] ensure that the BAE yard and workers have sufficient work all the way through to the commencement of building the T45 replacement. Therefore, if the last 2 T26 are canned, BAE would have to either 1]¡get some new work in that time frame (perhaps a second batch of Leander, assuming it is selected as the T31), the 2nd batch of T26 build rate is slowed even further (adding to cost), or 3] the T45 replacement programme is brought forward a few years).

Quite. T26 in water in 2025, in service two years later. When the last as per now installed 'tail' leaves service in 2035, out of the first 5 the last one is in water (but not in service).

Solution:
1] Military fitting out of all frigates/ destroyers to be done in the BAES yard (so the work comes to: any number of T26s plus 1/2 times the number of T31s that fits into the time window within which the T23s leave service)
2]Believe in Batch2 of T31s? Hell, yes, Batch1 will be truncated to 3... just to make everyone, and that includes the RN, to believe in the design. Then at least 3 'tails' will go onto the ships that follow
3] Depending on the time scale into which these 5+3+3 can be fitted, the T26AAW will be interleaved into the work prgrm as the next step

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood, but are you suggesting the (first?) T31 order will be reduced from 5 to 3?

[donald_of_tokyo]

@ Donald-san - Thanks for reply, a few questions

Source of your £750M figure for future buy of T26, the MOD engaged in deliberate obscurification to hide build cost by just giving total overall £3.7 B programme cost when announcing order for the first 3 ships. (3,700 less 750 x 3 = 2,250 leaves balance for design + initial cost £1,450M?)

Yes, "design + initial cost" was equivalent to 3 unit cost in FREMM. I think it is around 2-3 unit cost in other projects, as well. If we assume 2 unit-cost equivalent in the first 3 T26 contract, it gives us £740M, which I state £750M for simplicity.

You mention costs of £440M as a baseline guide for future frigate, do you not think UK can match the Japanese 6,000t 30FFM cost of <£400M.

Does the 30FFM have a quiet hull design and silenced engines and MGR.

Radar not GaN, ? Navy Recognition states "To our knowledge, Asahi (25DD) is Japan's first warship (and the world's second after the German F125 and its TRS-4D) to be fitted with an operational GaN-AESA (gallium nitride - active electronically scanned array) Multifunction Radar. Asahi's radar is based on the FCS-3A AESA radar system but uses GaN technology for improved performances. FCS-3A comes with 4x C-band and 4x X-band arrays (two forward and two aft for each).

Sorry, my writing was bad. 30FFM does carry GaN/AESA radar. But, it just specifies the semiconductor material and "radar wave-pattern controlled via software". At the same time, in Japan there is a rumor that 30FFM's radar is degraded a lot to keep it within the cost. These two issues (AESA+GaN and low-spec) do not contradict. GaN/AESA is just "GaN/AESA", it does not mean it is better than other radar. The amplifier of GaN, software for AESA and associated CPU power, and analysis software (with CPU power), these aspects define the performance of AESA, not the name of "being GaN/AESA".

On the ASW capability of 30FFM, it is not yet clear. I think it will be "so-so". But, its AAW is only a single SeaRAM. Very basic.

[ArmChairCivvy]

are you suggesting the (first?) T31 order will be reduced from 5 to 3?

It is not something I promote in any way, but how do you see we have all the 8 'tails' in water and service in 2035?
- Take the dates for first in each new class, and announced drumbeats for both of the new classes at face value

There are many ways to Rome and there are many ways of building 13 warships in Scotland... in due course. Dovetail the build schedules of the different T26 versions.

[Tempest414]

[quote="Poiuytrewq"]It is, but the A120 also requires the stern ramp to meet the T31 requirement. I am arguing for a simplified superstructure layout to allow for the deletion of the stern ramp which would facilitate the lowering of the flight deck and optimisation of the stern for a TAS.[/quote

this is why I feel if A120 was extended to 130 meter to allow a full width open mission bay and a full width hangar. as said this would allow the flight deck to be lowered

[Tempest414]

Also as for a batch 3 river design I feel we would now be better off with a 4 ship batch 1 95 or 100 meter multi-mission Venari design to balance the fleet and the RN to deploy ships all over the world

[Repulse]

Also as for a batch 3 river design I feel we would now be better off with a 4 ship batch 1 95 or 100 meter multi-mission Venari design to balance the fleet and the RN to deploy ships all over the world

I am tempted by this approach also, but the pinch is now and by building a B3 River we can get them in the next 3-4 years (perhaps built under licence by Appledore) and also, gives something soon for export. A future Venari MHPC Sloop design to ultimately replace the Rivers and MCMs to say a total fleet of 12-16 strong is the right longer term answer however.

[Poiuytrewq]

It is, but the A120 also requires the stern ramp to meet the T31 requirement. I am arguing for a simplified superstructure layout to allow for the deletion of the stern ramp which would facilitate the lowering of the flight deck and optimisation of the stern for a TAS.

This is why I feel if A120 was extended to 130 meter to allow a full width open mission bay and a full width hangar. as said this would allow the flight deck to be lowered

It would and a 10m extension would be very helpful for a number of reasons including raising the top speed up to around 25+ knots.

A LOA of 130m would be a better and 135m better still but at 138mX19m you have just built an Arrowhead 140. What is optimum? At 133mX16m you have just built a Type 23, why not use the T23 hull? Seems bonkers to change to a new hull form when we have a tried and tested acoustically quiet hull that has been proven over decades of use in the most demanding conditions. Clearly this option has been disregarded.

Arrowhead 120 has a core crew allocation of 80. At 120mX19m that's a lot of space for very high habitability standards and there is still additional accommodation provided for an extra 80 personnel if required. If Arrowhead120 is going to be built to proper naval standards and be improved over time then I would suggest a narrowing of the beam to around 16m to 16.5m to make it capable of escort speeds of 27+ knots.

Frigates with 16m beams aren't exactly unpopular globally.

A few examples,

Admiral Gorshkov Class (Russia)
135mX16m

image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

054A Class (China)
134mX16m

image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

Legend Class (USA)
127mX16m

Not strictly speaking a Frigate but a good example of what can be achieved with a 16m beam.

image.jpg

It could be argued that a 16m beam is too narrow for future proofing going forward but if that's the case why is Leander with a 14.6m beam the favourite to win the T31 competition?

Going back to Arrowhead 120, if the MOD is seriously trying to build £250m Frigates with naval standards that can be upgraded over time then the entire budget should be spent on the hull, superstructure and propulsion. The design should be extremely straightforward and low risk but to me A120 looks like it's trying to do too much. With an amidships mission bay and stern ramp plus intergrated mission space and side hatches I think it's trying too hard.

Although a full width mission bay would be nice, look how much time and money was wasted on the T26 trying to get a similar feature intergrated into the design. If the T31 is to work the design has to be simple and tough, basic but future proof. It's a big ask but something interesting might just be possible if the pitfalls that beset the T45 and T26 programmes are avoided.

[Poiuytrewq]

Also as for a batch 3 river design I feel we would now be better off with a 4 ship batch 1 95 or 100 meter multi-mission Venari design to balance the fleet and the RN to deploy ships all over the world

100% Agreed, the River Class are now a generation behind in my opinion.

[SW1]

Interesting you talking about a vessel of 130m it would appear FTI is available in that length

https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/ ... al-frigate

Could we license build 5 from the french and leave out some of the high end systems initially to save cost.

[ArmChairCivvy]

It could be argued that a 16m beam is too narrow for future proofing going forward but if that's the case why is Leander with a 14.6m beam the favourite to win the T31 competition?

A good point. But we seem to like to be driving by looking at the rear mirror (only!).

[CameronPerson]

Spread Sheet Phil has just announced £1billion extra for defence with special mention towards cyber security and ASW.. Exactly what this translates to isn’t known, no doubt we’ll find out when the MDP is finally published. Although a billion pounds extra is somewhat of a win for Williamson, it is of course just a sticking plaster on an equipment plan which wasn’t funded properly. Nowhere close to the massive win the MOD will try to spin it as

[donald_of_tokyo]

It could be argued that a 16m beam is too narrow for future proofing going forward but if that's the case why is Leander with a 14.6m beam the favourite to win the T31 competition?

Sorry, but your comparison candidate is not appropriate, I think. T31 is in the lowest-end of a light-frigate and your candidate are in the large-light-frigate or small-proper-frigate.

It is similar to compare Legend class with T26 and say why not 20m abeam?

Going back to Arrowhead 120, if the MOD is seriously trying to build £250m Frigates with naval standards that can be upgraded over time then the entire budget should be spent on the hull, superstructure and propulsion.

Understandable. If the future budgetary condition is "golden", I agree. But, I see many "holes" in RN to be filled, as well as many "behemoth" to come. SSBN, F35B, Challenger2, IFV, E-7, P-8,... If not many money is to come later, spending all money in hull shall come out to be a waste.

I am not saying I am right, but this is what I think.

Also as for a batch 3 river design I feel we would now be better off with a 4 ship batch 1 95 or 100 meter multi-mission Venari design to balance the fleet and the RN to deploy ships all over the world

100% Agreed, the River Class are now a generation behind in my opinion.

Venari must be a 18-20knots vessel. As I want this "River-B3-like" to be 25knots speed, I do not like to use Venari series here. Making Venari 25knot is a waste of money, and totally destroy its excellence. Speed costs a lot. Why make Venari so expensive?

[Ron5]

why is Leander with a 14.6m beam the favourite to win the T31 competition?

Because it's believable that they can be built at 250m per.

if the MOD is seriously trying to build £250m Frigates with naval standards that can be upgraded over time then the entire budget should be spent on the hull, superstructure and propulsion

But the MoD is not. The Type 31e design has to be adaptable to changes but the Type 31e ships are not intended to receive major upgrades during their life.

how much time and money was wasted on the T26 trying to get a similar feature integrated into the design

I don't know, does anybody? I doubt if the design work for just the mission bay can be split out from the rest of the design cost but merely adding an empty shed with a fancy crane to a ship's superstructure falls somewhere on the easy/cheap part of the spectrum.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1: As I stated many times, my favorite option for "T31e's 1.25B GBP" is "1 more T26 (~700M GBP, including efficiency savings) and 3-4 Floreal-likes (~550M GBP)".

The "Floreal-like" can be River-B3 fo BAE design, or a new design such as Babcock Arrowhead OPV series. Because "550M GBP" is twice the budget of 4 Irish navy's OPV, and 3 times that of RV Attenborough, those ships could be even shared within Camell Laired and Babcock Appledore, to save them for another 6-10 years.

2: If HMG/MOD is sticking on with T31e, I think the similar approach can be taken. Specifically, I propose to bias the cost significantly among the 5 hulls.
- build hull-1 and 2 with "Floreal-like" armaments. No CAMM, no sonar, just a 57mm gun, 2x30mm and a CIWS.
- build hull-3 and 4 with light-frigate configuration. 12 CAMM, hull-sonar and CAPTAS-4CI (or even CAPTAS-1, if not enough money), torpedo-defense, in addition to a 57mm gun and 2x30mm.
- depending on the "cost remaining", build hull-5 to either "light" or "heavy" configuration.

This will be good as
- "light" version can be used as a "guard ship", such as for APT-S and N, Med, and FRE. RN do have such tasks, but not in number. 3 hulls or even 2 may work.
- "heavy" version could be used for oversea promotion for export. What is more, it will be a 2nd-tier escort.
- the hull-5 will be a good option to promote ship-builders excellence. If the hull cost increases, still the builder gets 1.25B GBP and RN gets 3 light and 2 heavy version. If the hull cost was kept in control, the ship builder still gets 1.25B in full, but with a good reputation of "built it within schedule, within time".


[EDIT] If building 5 similar hulls, it will cost like, 200M for design+initial and 210M x5. My proposal is for 200M for design+initial, 150Mx3 and 300Mx2 = strongly biased.

[RetroSicotte]

£1b more per year obviously needs to be divided up to Cyber and CASD first, but even 30-40% of that heading to the Type 31 total budget could help at least produce a light frigate if they really want ASW out of it.

[Ron5]

why not use the T23 hull? Seems bonkers to change to a new hull form when we have a tried and tested acoustically quiet hull

This appears in various forms on a regular basis: Why not build a Type 45 replacement with a Type 26 hull? Why not build a Type 26 with a Type 23 hull? etc etc

But why do that? No expense is saved by slavishly using a pre-existing hull. The interior will be completely different. And what makes anyone believe the previous hull has the volume, load bearing, build characteristics, applicable to a ship that will be several decades newer?

I'm not talking about hull shapes. They are reused on a regular basis. A proven sea kindly or load carrying or economically driven shape will be added to the architects library. The QE, for example, used cruise ship lines in her development.

[CameronPerson]

I don’t know how much of that figure will end up going to cyber; after all there’s that not so insignificant shortfall in the P8s budget

[Ron5]

£1b more per year obviously needs to be divided up to Cyber and CASD first, but even 30-40% of that heading to the Type 31 total budget could help at least produce a light frigate if they really want ASW out of it.

One billion next year doesn't help the Type 31 program. I would think getting more Type 23's to sea would be a more likely target.