Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

SD67 wrote:I like your approach
The FF shouldn’t even be that expensive. I believe the Frigate factory in Adelaide is costing around 300 million, were that to be replicated onto the Clyde it would surely pay for itself pretty quickly.
The Aussie facility is a fair bit simpler than the proposed Clyde Frigate Factory. Effectively they're assembling the ship blocks into one piece whilst Govan is building them in two mega-blocks and then joining them together:



Definitely an improvement on how we're building the Batch 1 frigates but still not as impressive as the 300m+ covered dry dock they hoped to build (said to cost only £200m). A downside was that a single site couldn't justify keeping the full workforce of Govan and Scotstoun.

There was a great video which BAE seem to have taken down, showing how they could could work simultaneously on two Type 26s, clearly at a far faster rate than either Australia or Canada will put them together, whilst fitting them out in one of the many neighbouring drydocks. Simply put, it would have been a world-class facility and potentially could have driven unit cost down hugely:

Image

To this day I struggle to understand why BAE knocked down the old Scotstoun shipbuilding hall, before they had any guarantees that the Frigate Factory would be funded but I presume they had their reasons....

Jensy

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SD67 wrote:I think CL’s workforce is more like 1000 once you include contractors, they’re bigger than you think, IMO they could certainly handle a block of T26 plus River 2.5
Thanks. CL has RFA maintenance contract, which is 620M GBP for 10 years, which is bigger than 800M GBP for 16 years (10% of T26, as a case study). The latter is 50M GBP/year. If 50% is used for workers salary, 25M GBP can earn how many workers? Including all the social insurance, I estimated it to be ~300.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

I think that a second shipbuilding company, based in England ( or at least out of Scotland ) is necesarry, in case of Scottish independence. Whatever the costs are.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

abc123 wrote:I think that a second shipbuilding company, based in England ( or at least out of Scotland ) is necesarry, in case of Scottish independence. Whatever the costs are.
Keeping it for long period, compared to "pay for moving everything back to England when it happens", which will be more expensive? I think the answer will not be clear. Keeping second escort shipyard will make BOTH Clyde and the second shipyard very inefficient. Not surprised even if the ship cost gets expensive by 30-50%.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
abc123 wrote:I think that a second shipbuilding company, based in England ( or at least out of Scotland ) is necesarry, in case of Scottish independence. Whatever the costs are.
Keeping it for long period, compared to "pay for moving everything back to England when it happens", which will be more expensive? I think the answer will not be clear. Keeping second escort shipyard will make BOTH Clyde and the second shipyard very inefficient. Not surprised even if the ship cost gets expensive by 30-50%.
Ukraine scenario... ;)
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Surely that's one of the reasons behind the NSS's "distributed shipyard" idea. It's a relatively cheap way of preserving capacity "just in case", and would allow the UK to continue building ships even during disruption caused by a split with Scotland
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Caribbean wrote:Surely that's one of the reasons behind the NSS's "distributed shipyard" idea. It's a relatively cheap way of preserving capacity "just in case", and would allow the UK to continue building ships even during disruption caused by a split with Scotland
That's the plan but how many of these yards are going to go the wall before HMG finally gets around to making a decision and placing an order.

A cynic would think that HMG are allowing a bit of natural selection to take place before finalising a strategy to secure the remaining yards. A very effective way of removing over-capacity but allowing a yard like H&W to close whilst concentrating all UK escort building in Scotland is clearly bonkers in the current political climate.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Does seem crazy, surely for example the T26 and T45 replacements were built in Scotland at 18 months intervals for 16 hulls would that not be 24 yrs? maybe a bit slower for the first couple of hulls = 25yrs? then start again for the replacements, then another yard for the MCM replacement and RFA ships ( SSS/tankers etc ) with the replacements for Albion + Bulwark, is that not enough work for 2 yards if all partys ( with there short thinking :problem: ) agree to a uninterrupted funding ?

Not including Barrow for subs

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SD67 wrote:I think CL’s workforce is more like 1000 once you include contractors, they’re bigger than you think, IMO they could certainly handle a block of T26 plus River 2.5
Thanks. CL has RFA maintenance contract, which is 620M GBP for 10 years, which is bigger than 800M GBP for 16 years (10% of T26, as a case study). The latter is 50M GBP/year. If 50% is used for workers salary, 25M GBP can earn how many workers? Including all the social insurance, I estimated it to be ~300.
Well their website says 650 core plus contractors = avg 1000. Their turnover has been around 100m per year for a while, they do other stuff as well ie servicing windfarms. 100k revenue per employee is about right, Merseyside is not exactly a top paying area

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

serge750 wrote:Does seem crazy, surely for example the T26 and T45 replacements were built in Scotland at 18 months intervals for 16 hulls would that not be 24 yrs? maybe a bit slower for the first couple of hulls = 25yrs? then start again for the replacements, then another yard for the MCM replacement and RFA ships ( SSS/tankers etc ) with the replacements for Albion + Bulwark, is that not enough work for 2 yards if all partys ( with there short thinking :problem: ) agree to a uninterrupted funding ?
Not saying two yards are impossible, but saying two "escort yards" are very in-efficient. For example, France, even with good export, has a single "Naval" yard for escorts/corvettes, and "Kirship" yard for OPV and PSV-like support ships.

I totally agree keeping (at least) Cammell Laird "alive" is very very important. But, it could be with building T31e, or MARS-SSS, or anything else.

How about 6 or 8 Caimen 90 high-speed LCU to "save the day"?
Or, how about some blocks of T26, with 9th T26 in promise (to enable BAES to include CL within the program).

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

However, if sufficient escorts were being built, with a Navy of the size that it needs to be then there would be more than enough work for two yards, maybe even three! :idea:

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

9th T26, Yes. However I will never understand the logic for Batch 2 OPV and T31. Surely the combined cost of these 2 projects would have given 5 proper Frigates, while retaining the 4 Batch 1/1.5 OPV's? The Adelaide yard demonstrates the benefit of a Frigate Factory, opposed to our current position. Also known as 'pants'.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Digger22 wrote:I will never understand the logic for Batch 2 OPV and T31. Surely the combined cost of these 2 projects would have given 5 proper Frigates
Well, the £1.25b for the T31 budget plus £635m for the Batch 2 OPVs would have given a budget of £2.135b, which would give a T31 budget of £427m per hull, which should build a fairly decent mid-level frigate.
Unfortunately it didn't work out that way
The original budget was supposedly £13.4b for 13 frigates plus initial training and (10 year?) support package. The design cost more than it was supposed to (amount unknown -if anyone has figures, please let us know), and wasn't ready for the point at which BAE ran out of work (it's still said to be only 80% complete).
Thanks to Gordon Brown's genius TOBA deal with BAE, the MOD would have had to pay BAE £230m per annum for nothing, for two years, so they decided to get something for their money and did a rather poor deal* for 5 new OPVs that the RN didn't need, for a total cost of £635m (which appears to have been paid out of the T26 budget).
The Treasury pulled about £1b** back out of the T26 budget. Around £1.2b was spent on fabrication and testing facilities, plus other up-front costs*** (some was probably the on-going design costs), so the £13.4b project seems to have got started on building with at least £3.1b either spent or removed, leaving approx. £10.3b.
This wasn't enough to build 13 frigates, so it was decided to build 8 T26 ASW for £8.5b, leaving approx. £1.8b for the remaining 5 GP frigates.
Hence the T31 program. Five frigates for £1.5b, with around £300m left in the pot.

Basically, a bit of a flustercluck.

* when I say "rather poor", I really mean something less polite
** this, IMO is the most likely way of money being put back into the program, as part of a package "rolling back the cuts"
*** some or all of this £1.2b may have come from the £8.5b for the existing T26 program, rather than the initial budget - if so, removing the double-accounting increases the contingency fund, which may be where the money for the "possible" extra T31 hulls is supposed to come from
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Caribbean, agree with the broad thrust of our analysis which demonstrates the impact of interfering politics and poor project management at its worse. The number of resulting number of T26s could have been double than what is the current plan.

The only thing I would say is that the B2 Rivers aren’t the disaster that perhaps some think. I agree though the cost is completely out - but was defined by the TOBA rather than the design.

The original MHPC programme, now MHC is clearly focused on off-board systems rather than new ships. At the time when the “P” was dropped it was claimed the budget went to the the 5 OPVs, what is clear it was a stealth cut also.

Whilst a hangar/mission bay is missing, the B2 design is a solid minor warships capable of forward basing and long duration operations. The design as-is has significant space for growth and an expansive deck space to be used for operating off board systems. It is IMO a solid basis for an evolving class which needs to grow to take on part of the MCM role in the next 10 years.

The B2 will only be a disaster if the RN/HMG refuse to invest in it to get the maximum opportunity out of it - yes it can (and should) do EEZ patrolling, but that should only be part of it.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

The one thing that must not happen, is for Politicians to ever believe that a River B2 can either be (or replace) a frigate. :mrgreen:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Scimitar54 wrote:The one thing that must not happen, is for Politicians to ever believe that a River B2 can either be (or replace) a frigate. :mrgreen:
Don't worry, it does not have a hangar, which is assumed to be consisting what is a frigate. :mrgreen:

On the other hand, T31e even if very lightly armed, will be called frigate. Here is the real danger. Thanks to good export success of T26, a claim as following is less likely to happen, but still the risk does exist;

"Why not cut 5 T26 (~3.8B GBP) and build 6 T31 (~1.2B GBP) to save 2.6B GBP to fill the 4-10B GBP black hole, and even increase one more frigate!"

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Scimitar54 wrote:The one thing that must not happen, is for Politicians to ever believe that a River B2 can either be (or replace) a frigate. :mrgreen:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Don't worry, it does not have a hangar, which is assumed to be consisting what is a frigate.
I’d say in most lay people’s minds (including MPs) is if has ASuMs or a large gun then it is a frigate, a helicopter and hangar less so.

The rule should be set that if you want to start or participate in a fight you need a task group made up of CVF, SSN, DD or FF. Sloops / OPVs are supporting actors and good at keeping a eye on things until a fight starts.

That’s why my view is that the T31 is too much for a Sloop and too little for a Frigate. The only niche for a T31 would be an ASW Sloop, but if that was the objective we are going about it the wrong way.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Well at least the river b2 still have a "P" designation & a small gun instead of an 'F" so as not to confuse the politicians ! (fingers crossed) maybe giving them more armament would not be such a good idea yet ? until the mid 2020's/30's when T31/T26 start to come online. I do hope either the T31 is a stop gap till more T26 can be ordered or a good base for a GP frigate that can/will be added to....

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

serge750 wrote:maybe giving them more armament would not be such a good idea yet ?
Take your point, but adding another two 30mm mounts port and starboard basically brings them up to the same level as the Brazilian Amazonas Class. I also hope the LMM/Starstreak bolt-ons becomes the fleet standard.

The only other other realistic fitted add-on would be a 57mm gun, which to be honest could wait.

Where there could be additional easy wins is off board systems (USVs and UAVs like a containerised Camcopter equivalent).
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Repulse wrote:the B2 Rivers aren’t the disaster that perhaps some think
The ships themselves seem quite decent, but we should have had them for considerably less than £127m each. A 2000t OPV should have cost around £55-60m (the Irish Samuel Beckett-class are slightly larger and came in at around £65m at today's exchange rates). Even allowing an extra 20% for "higher standards" (debatable), they should only have cost approx. £70m each. I think that that additional £57m per hull would have made quite a difference to the T31 program.
Repulse wrote:It is IMO a solid basis for an evolving class which needs to grow to take on part of the MCM role in the next 10 years
I would agree that there is good potential to evolve the River design, if BAE are prepared to think commercially. At the right price point an up-armed and armoured patrol ship/frigate, could fill a niche somewhere between the Kership Gowind OPV and the Naval Group Gowind corvette, having better protection and survivability than the former and longer range than the latter. Also, as you say, it looks to have good potential for redesign for the MCM/ offboard systems role, though it may be that a design based on an offshore support vessel is adequate (and potentially cheaper). The old Venator 90 seemed quite a decent concept and I'm sure the Rivers could be redesigned to emulate that.

As for the existing B2s, I'm not sure how far I would go with upgrades - adding extra 30mm ASCG and Martlet, along with selective armouring against low-end weapons would seem very sensible, as it gives the B2s a low-threat escort capability, but I would think that it might be better to leave major improvements to a later batch
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Caribbean wrote: I would agree that there is good potential to evolve the River design, if BAE are prepared to think commercially. At the right price point an up-armed and armoured patrol ship/frigate, could fill a niche somewhere between the Kership Gowind OPV and the Naval Group Gowind corvette, having better protection and survivability than the former and longer range than the latter. Also, as you say, it looks to have good potential for redesign for the MCM/ offboard systems role, though it may be that a design based on an offshore support vessel is adequate (and potentially cheaper). The old Venator 90 seemed quite a decent concept and I'm sure the Rivers could be redesigned to emulate that.
This is where I’d look at the design as is and make the following changes -
Widen the beam by 1m odd to 14m-14.5m and lengthen it by 15m to 105m giving a Vessel that’s roughly 105m by 14m around 3000t.

Remove the current crane position and place a wildcat hanger here that raps around the funnel to give 2 enclosed boat bays / unmanned bays with dividends. Behind the hanger have wildcat cable flight deck. These areas would be raised by one deck.

At the stern I’d go for a 15m odd by full width open mission deck with a good size crane and further dividends that would open into the covered work deck below the flight deck.

The speed should be roughly similar due to the extra length and width pros and cons cancelling each other out.

This sort of vessel could do all of the MCHP roles so could be attractive to a number of navies for different roles, while giving a good bit of commonality through the RN.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Caribbean wrote:As for the existing B2s, I'm not sure how far I would go with upgrades - adding extra 30mm ASCG and Martlet, along with selective armouring against low-end weapons would seem very sensible, as it gives the B2s a low-threat escort capability, but I would think that it might be better to leave major improvements to a later batch
A 57mm would be a great addition but you are probably right. 3 x 30mm Seahawk Sigma mounts would be a strong base self defence capability - perhaps with some decoys like on the Thai variant.
Jake1992 wrote:This sort of vessel could do all of the MCHP roles so could be attractive to a number of navies for different roles, while giving a good bit of commonality through the RN.
Absolutely - it’s not just the ship it’s the whole design, build support (for local construction), support, systems, training and off-board add-ons.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

No every effort should be made to have the T-31e based on a large enough platform so that it can evolve over its service life, it should not be diluted into becoming a "Super" River. If the RN actually has a need for an up gunned OPV then it should look to modifying the B2 Rivers for that role.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

The idea behind the T31e was for it to have an RN service life of only 10-15 years and not be significantly modernised during that time. Let us say that this is how the first batch will be treated. The second and subsequent batches ??? might be turned out to a higher standard and cost (for example as a 2nd Rate ASW Frigate). I think that the short termism was meant to get HMG and the RN "out of a hole" regarding escort numbers in the short term due the the high costs of keeping T23GP in service beyond sensible limits. Things have been allowed to go too far. We do need the T31 for this in very short order, so there should be no prevarication about the specification and construction of the first batch.
There is also a secondary and (for the Future Procurement of vessels for the RN) definitely more important reason for not complicating the T31 issue, that is the attempt to hold down the cost of production of "a simple escort" to a figure that is not felt to be achievable, based on recent experience with BAE. If broadly achieved, it will strengthen the MODs hand in securing a more realistic pricing regime for future escorts, whether these be for a further batch of T31, T26, MHPC or indeed any other (T46?).
I know, people will say "but we want a different T31". The danger is, that the downward spiral will continue and we will have fewer and fewer escorts ........ That would be totally unacceptable! :idea:

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The T31e in its current form will be a paper Frigate, it will look good on wall charts, government stats and photo shoots - but in a real conflict (the chances of which are increasing) it will be virtually useless as an Escort against any peer foe. Any idea of additional funds to upgrade in the next 10-15 years is extremely unlikely given the broader demands on the budget.

It will not be an export success, as it will never be able to compete with proven designs already out there - like the IH. It will be a short lived (dead-end) class. My prediction is that the biggest beneficiaries will be the book authors on Naval Design as a case study on what not to do.

Add two more T26s and the RN gets a first class peer capable fighting fleet of 16 warships, one less than the current effective fleet. Couple this by new ways of operating the fleet and it is a sound strategy given the budgetary constraints.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Post Reply