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.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Dec 2018, 13:22

Ron5 wrote: As I have stated before, book value of the guns & sonars will be based on their actual acquisition cost, not a theoretical replacement cost.


Sorry Ron, the MoD have a lot of downloads about the changes they make to their reporting. As RAB happened at the beginning of this millennium, the changes since may make interesting reading (for understanding the published figures):
"The MOD is one of the largest owners of non-current assets in the United Kingdom. The
stewardship and efficient management of the Department’s assets are the responsibility of Top Level Budget (TLB) Holders. MOD non-current assets are formally revalued on a five-yearly basis, but are uplifted annually using indexation.

This valuation method complies with financial reporting standards with values being on an existing
use basis rather than market value at disposal. Overseas estates for which the Crown holds no
legal title, but which are used for garrison and training purposes by British Forces, are included in the MOD non-current assets register. UK bases occupied by visiting forces are also included.

As at 31 March2017, the value of MOD non-current assets stood at £130.6 billion
, which is a rise of £2.8 billion compared to the
figure for the previous year. The recent increases in value have
been caused mainly by the reclassification of inventory as non-current assets.
The largest value non-current assets were Single Use Military Equipment at
£33.1billion
and Land and Buildings worth £31.6billion. "

What's £2 or 3 bn between friends? The sums are so big that no one ;) would have noticed.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 03 Dec 2018, 13:42

shark bait wrote:Taking 3 VLS modules off the T26 is going to save peanuts
Removing the TLAM capability will save a significant amount, as will removing the Mk45 and auto magazine and simplifying the mission bay. I would aim for a 57/76mm, 24 CAMM and a single 8 cell Mk41 for ASW and ASuW on the downgraded variants. Speed up the build schedule by adding more hulls and try and get 10 to 12 in the water.

The T31 programme could transfer across to building big multi role GPV's. Any money left out of the T31 programme could be moved across to the T26 pot.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:One word: ABM
The ABM capability looks like something we don't need in my opinion, maybe you can convince me?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3302
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 03 Dec 2018, 14:08

Poiuytrewq wrote:
shark bait wrote:Taking 3 VLS modules off the T26 is going to save peanuts
Removing the TLAM capability will save a significant amount, as will removing the Mk45 and auto magazine and simplifying the mission bay.
But adding TLAM on T45 will cost the same?

With 24 cell VLS, I think T26 shall better have TLAM than T45. It can launch "up to" 24 TLAMS with 1 control electronics. T45 can up to 16. (TLAM control electronics can also launch LRASM, as I understand.)

#Other issues, I have no big comment now.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 03 Dec 2018, 15:45

Poiuytrewq wrote:Removing the TLAM capability will save a significant amount

How? The RN haven't paid for a surface TLAM capability yet, so removing it saves zilch!

donald_of_tokyo wrote:TLAM control electronics can also launch LRASM

Surely a new install would not require much in the way of specific consoles like the old days. I expect the big cost these days would be integrating and qualifying the software on the existing combat system.
@LandSharkUK

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Dec 2018, 16:20

TLAM should be a low priority for the RN. It has a whole list of other needs ahead of it such as a new AShM, deciding whether to purchase VL-ASROC just for starters. As for the T-45, it is an excellent AAW platform as far as its AAW systems go. In my opinion it needs to stich at what it is best at and increase its missile inventory by installing Sea Ceptor and increasing its Aster 30 loadout. It doesn't require Mk41 VLS for the former and I believe there is space for additional Sylver launchers already but may be mistaken. Turning to the T-26, at present nothing has been announced that would provide any weapon systems that would fill the planned 3x8 cell Mk41s. However we RN currently doesn't have enough to load the active SSNs and the active T-26s. Like so many MoD programmes most are currently half cocked along the lines of ordering a gun and then ordering the bullets a decade later.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Dec 2018, 16:48

Poiuytrewq wrote:would aim for a 57/76mm, 24 CAMM and a single 8 cell Mk41 for ASW and ASuW on the downgraded variants. Speed up the build schedule by adding more hulls and try and get 10 to 12 in the water.

The T31 programme could transfer across to building big multi role GPV's.


Make those 3 - the Italian job - and we have a deal :)

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 03 Dec 2018, 18:28

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote: As I have stated before, book value of the guns & sonars will be based on their actual acquisition cost, not a theoretical replacement cost.


Sorry Ron, the MoD have a lot of downloads about the changes they make to their reporting. As RAB happened at the beginning of this millennium, the changes since may make interesting reading (for understanding the published figures):
"The MOD is one of the largest owners of non-current assets in the United Kingdom. The
stewardship and efficient management of the Department’s assets are the responsibility of Top Level Budget (TLB) Holders. MOD non-current assets are formally revalued on a five-yearly basis, but are uplifted annually using indexation.

This valuation method complies with financial reporting standards with values being on an existing
use basis rather than market value at disposal. Overseas estates for which the Crown holds no
legal title, but which are used for garrison and training purposes by British Forces, are included in the MOD non-current assets register. UK bases occupied by visiting forces are also included.

As at 31 March2017, the value of MOD non-current assets stood at £130.6 billion
, which is a rise of £2.8 billion compared to the
figure for the previous year. The recent increases in value have
been caused mainly by the reclassification of inventory as non-current assets.
The largest value non-current assets were Single Use Military Equipment at
£33.1billion
and Land and Buildings worth £31.6billion. "

What's £2 or 3 bn between friends? The sums are so big that no one ;) would have noticed.


You are flat wrong. The MoD has one way of calculating value for long lasting assets like buildings & land based on their replacement cost and another way for short lived assets like guns & sonars which is based on their actual acquisition cost.

Not going to debate this any further.

By the way: single use military equipment are things like bombs, missiles & bullets. You get to use them once. Guns & sonars get used over and over again.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Dec 2018, 19:53

Ron5 wrote:Not going to debate this any further.

Quite right. Because you have quoted the right answer in that same post.

Ron5 wrote: single use military equipment are things like bombs, missiles & bullets. You get to use them once. Guns & sonars get used over and over again

Ron, sorry to say that you are wrong again.
The right answer: "Single Use Military Equipment
Single use military equipment are MOD held assets
which are only suitable for military purposes (such as warships), as opposed to dual-
use equipment which can also be used for non-military purposes. "
- between friends it is "SUME" in the MoD documents

No point going on, but knowing the definitions is helpful in interpreting the figures.
- I do read the footnotes, too, not just the graphs and tables

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Dec 2018, 20:12

Please no more "MoD Accountant Jargon Wars"!

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 04 Dec 2018, 00:24

Too many CREATIVE ACCOUNTANTS in both the Government and MOD, may not have been helpful in their past actions. Perhaps one cause of Budget problems today.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Dec 2018, 12:15

It is more a three pronged failure comprised of poor programme management, political interference and inept commercial practices.

NickC
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 06 Dec 2018, 16:35

The Spanish Type 26, the Navantia F110 frigate, Spanish Ministry of Finance is currently reviewing the contract to order five F-110 frigates for the Spanish Navy, budgeted to cost 4,326 M euros, ~£770M per frigate, decision expected before year end, not sure if apples to apples comparison with the £3.7B contract for first three T26s , ~ £1,233M per frigate.

As yet have seen no final spec, provisional info, 6,100t ship, LOA 126 m, beam 15.2 m, draft 6.5 m, crew will be small ~ 120-130, hybrid electric propulsion CODELAG, COmbined Diesel-ELectric And Gas, one GT with four 3MW diesel gensets (same power DGs as in T26) in sound enclosures and two shaft mounted 3.4 MW electric motors (as far as know T26 EM rating not disclosed), max speed of 28 knots, cruise 17 knots.

Integrated mast with the new flat panel array radars, Indra/LM S-band GaN radar and an Indra/Polytechnic University of Madrid X-band radar (T26 has no high definition X-band radar), new Navantia SCOMBA CMS with the new LM IAFCL, International AEGIS Fire Control Loop to integrate CMS/radar with SM/ESSM missiles, HMS and ATAS - Mk45 5" main gun, 2x 30mm cannon, Mk41 VLS 16 cells, 2x 2 ASuW missile deck launchers, 2x ASW torpedo tubes for the MK 54 Mod 0 LWT's plus multi-mission modular bay for UAV, USV and flight deck with hangar for two medium helicopters and UAVs.

The Spanish Navy AAW missiles comprises Raytheon’s SM-2-IIIB and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 2, ESSM Block 2 was selected in preference to Sea Ceptor system in September.

If the program is approved by year-end, the preliminary design review will follow by the end of 2019, leading to construction launch of the lead ship, F-111, by mid-2020, with the other ships following at the rate of one per year, would expect all five to be operational at approx same time as the first T26 in 2027.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... r_end.html
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Dec 2018, 19:25

You cannot really compare costs regarding any defence programmes between the UK and other nations as the UK seems to have an innate ability to shoot itself in the foot with poor programme management which is usually driven by Treasury insistence on rigidly sticking to in year budgets, not transferring funding between funding lines and not allow either unspent funding to be retained for the following year or brought forward even is it saved money on the longer run.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 06 Dec 2018, 19:47

Would that be the Navantia design that was rejected in favor of the Type 26 by both Australia and Canada?

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 354
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby jimthelad » 06 Dec 2018, 23:03

And sinks in fjords? :crazy:

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Halidon » 07 Dec 2018, 01:42

Ron5 wrote:Would that be the Navantia design that was rejected in favor of the Type 26 by both Australia and Canada?

Well in the strictest sense no, because neither likely used as many Spanish-sourced systems as F110. The final costs, and local industry effects, can vary a lot based on where things like your radar comes from. Beyond that, my understanding is the Navantia bids were F100-based, as with HOBART. While Navantia likes to talk up the family heritage for marketing, the F110 architecture appears sufficiently distinct from F100 that I couldn't characterize it as the same base design which came up short against T26...absent a lot more information being published which demonstrated such commonality.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 07 Dec 2018, 15:25

Halidon wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Would that be the Navantia design that was rejected in favor of the Type 26 by both Australia and Canada?

Well in the strictest sense no, because neither likely used as many Spanish-sourced systems as F110. The final costs, and local industry effects, can vary a lot based on where things like your radar comes from. Beyond that, my understanding is the Navantia bids were F100-based, as with HOBART. While Navantia likes to talk up the family heritage for marketing, the F110 architecture appears sufficiently distinct from F100 that I couldn't characterize it as the same base design which came up short against T26...absent a lot more information being published which demonstrated such commonality.


I wasn't being entirely serious :D

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Dec 2018, 00:27

You get what you pay for. I wonder if the T-31e team have taken notes on the integrity of the Navantia design which was supposed to be naval spec I thought.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 10 Dec 2018, 08:32

NickC wrote:Integrated mast with the new flat panel array radars


Another navy moving towards integrated masts, the benefits look clear, especially for exports. The French approach is real next level stuff, it's a bit of a shame the UK isn't bothering (or trying anything novel at all), instead its doing the same thing but expecting different results.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Halidon » 10 Dec 2018, 16:07

shark bait wrote:
NickC wrote:Integrated mast with the new flat panel array radars


Another navy moving towards integrated masts, the benefits look clear, especially for exports. The French approach is real next level stuff, it's a bit of a shame the UK isn't bothering (or trying anything novel at all), instead its doing the same thing but expecting different results.

With regards to exports, T26's non-UK family demonstrates how the "base" design and derivatives thereof can differ noticeably in the mast department, the base design "simply" needs adequate margin reserved for that much weight/space high atop the superstructure.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 10 Dec 2018, 16:51

True, a high capability customer will want to do their own thing as the T26 shows. Where the integrated mast has value is the less developed customer, with Egypt being a good example;

Egypt is doing the simple metal bashing part in house, and buying a fully built and tested integrated mast from France which simple gets bolted on at the end. It builds national content like customers want, and it keeps the high value high sensitive work in house like we want. It would be a great selling point for the T31, which unfortunately lacks any modern features.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Dec 2018, 18:12

Hey-hoh
what makes an ASW specialist into an AAW candidate:
Halidon wrote: in the mast department, the base design "simply" needs adequate margin reserved for that much weight/space high atop the superstructure.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 11 Dec 2018, 15:57

shark bait wrote:True, a high capability customer will want to do their own thing as the T26 shows. Where the integrated mast has value is the less developed customer, with Egypt being a good example;

Egypt is doing the simple metal bashing part in house, and buying a fully built and tested integrated mast from France which simple gets bolted on at the end. It builds national content like customers want, and it keeps the high value high sensitive work in house like we want. It would be a great selling point for the T31, which unfortunately lacks any modern features.


https://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/surfer-who-calls-himself-shark-bait-gets-attacked-by-shark-in-australia

Get well soon.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3302
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 14 Dec 2018, 13:48

Moved from T45 thread....
shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:How can you ensure the safety of the Amphibious Task Group if your T45's are 200nm away with the CSG?

I doubt the escorts would be 200 miles away. Also remember CAMM is capable of area defence, with control software derived from PAAMS.

jimthelad wrote:The problem for CAMM on T45 is throw height. It cant clear SAMPSON on its mast if it is on the forward silo.

What is the throw height? Whats the difference between an T45 and T26?
I see no problem T45 cannot handle Russian Air Force "alpha strike" near there shore. Japan's AEGIS DDG will not be able to survive JASDF (air force) "alpha strike" with a hundred of ASM, but it does not mean the AEGIS DDG is useless. It is just that going near shore of a nation with modern air force without appropriate air cover is simply a stupid idea.

By the way, I am very interested in "up arming" T45 with CAMM.

I am actually thinking of the possibility to take advantage of this "fuss" to use UOR budget to pay for introduction cost of high-density CAMM launcher, namely ExLS (or any other can do).

This is one shot cost, for say 50-100M GBP (kick-off customer to pay the development cost). ExLS's launcher cost per missile will not be so high than current mushroom canisters, because ExLS has only one door for 4 missiles, while all the associated electronics is the same (as LM says "reused existing ones").

This will enable to add 48 (or 24 if not enough budget) CAMM to T45.

But, this is not the main aim. It will make the future of CAMM missile very bright.

I would like to see T26 and T31 adopting ExLS. Because of cost, no need to increase the missile number as built. But, it will enable to leave 75% (or at least 66%) of the launcher space "vacant" = FFBNW for future increase in missiles.

As the system will be very compact, adding CAMM to T45 will become very easy (much better than consuming Sylver VLS with quad pack). At the same time, it can be adopted to corvette and light frigates more easily. In these smaller warships, space and weight is very precious. And maybe it will be cheaper to carry 48 CAMM (compactness and single logistic chain) than carrying 32 ESSM and 11 RAM (SeaRAM) (large and double logistic chain).

Although a bit fantasy, I think "investing in ExLS" will make many things better, including export chances for T31e itself.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Dec 2018, 01:02

Big fan of ExLS, already cleared for Sea Ceptor in both stand alone 3 cell and VLS insert. The UK should go all in on both these and the Mk41. Sylver will end up a dead end on the T-45 going forward. Great system but no where near as flexible as the Mk41 though it's makers are trying to catch up. But we should look to the US for future missile systems that we cannot really afford to develop or shouldn't as they would duplicate ones already in service or soon will be. We need to be careful what we concentrate on, Sea Ceptor is a good example and the current programmes being developed by the Complex Weapons team should be carried forward but avoiding co-operation with France for example for numerous reasons current and historical.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jake1992, Lord Jim, SKB and 20 guests