Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

MikeKiloPapa wrote: add another £100M or more to the cost.....at which point you are approaching the price of an Arleigh Burke, with its much superiour radars , and 3 times as many missiles.
A pity that the above post [ most informative!] does not separate the comment(s) from the "stupid" postulations.

Just to say that the Canadian assessment of AB for them was.... @2bn!
-- ok, Canada yards add ' BIT' but what is the next flight going for? with all the economies of a long run ?
l
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote: add another £100M or more to the cost.....at which point you are approaching the price of an Arleigh Burke, with its much superiour radars , and 3 times as many missiles.
A pity that the above post [ most informative!] does not separate the comment(s) from the "stupid" postulations.

Just to say that the Canadian assessment of AB for them was.... @2bn!
-- ok, Canada yards add ' BIT' but what is the next flight going for? with all the economies of a long run ?
l
Does any build of any vessel include the cost of missiles or motions ? Iv never heard of it and considering the MOD has a separate missile budget so that cost should never be included.

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 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:the type 23 has a smaller underwater noise signature and is a couple of knots faster ..That is it!.....In all other aspects the A140 is either equal or better!
Not true, in some cases yes, in other cases not.
initially it has the same level of armament
No, a 250M GBP will never equip T31e as much as T23.
but with capacity for much more, .being a bigger ship it doesnt just have better growth potential, its also a better weapons and sensor platform.
Agree.
Its internal arrangement is better.
Habitability is better.
Agree
... Maintainability is MUCH better
Flexibility and adaptability is superiour.
Totally agree here.
And while it will , at least initially , lack the powerful ASW sensors of the T23, it is prepared for the installation of those, and they could be fitted if the RN so choses.
Mostly agree. As not quiet hull, A140 will not be as good as T23 in ASW, even if equally equipped.
As a GP frigate the A140 will have an equivalent CMS (but in a superior OPS room/CIC)
Big objection here.

What do you mean by "equivalent CMS"? There is no indication A140 will have the same level of CMS as modified T23 has. For me, cost says simply no. If you mean TACTICOS is equivalent to CMS-1 (now rebranded INTeACT), I agree. But the point is, both CMS are scalable.

-TACTICOS is used in variety of vessels: DOGAN class missile craft (Turkey), KRABI class OPV (Thai), Al Khareef class corvette (Oman), IVER HUITFELDT class frigates (Danish) etc.

- Similarly, CMS-1 is installed in RFA Argus, HSM Clyde, River B2 OPVs, T45 destroyers, T23 and T26 frigates.

The level of CMS is defined by issues such as, number of consoles, computational power, and in particular, installed softwares (which is the most costy part), even if the brand name is the same.

TACTICOS CMS in A140 will be the same level as IVER HUITFELDT class, or Al Khareef class, or Krabi-class OPV, no announcement yet.
and better radar......
Agreed.
in terms of ESM/ECM , decoys , SIGINT/ELINT capability we dont know what it will be fitted with yet, but likely the same basic capability as T23 has.
Simply, not known, I think. The "basic capability of T23" is much more high grade than Krabi-class OPV and Al Khareef class corvette, of course (both has basic ESM and decoy systems).
...A140 at least has the potential to become a first rate surface combatant.
I have no objection here. A140 design is very capable. My point is, T31 is NOT capable (regardless of its hull based on Leander, MEKO A200 or Arrowhead 140), simply because of too small cost. Again, it is only a corvette-class cost.
And lets be frank ......the only reason some here dont like it , is because it isnt British (enough) .....If Leander had been the one based on a Danish design , no one would be giving it a second look!
Partly yes. I think Danish design to get the first ever export order is very interesting. Its unique concept to survive is nice to see (as Danish shipyard has been closed).

The only point is, how to fight in export market in future. Of course, this will deeply depend on the license contract between OMT and Babcock. If Babcock got the exclusive export license for any future export of IVER HUITFELDT-based design, it is great, but its cheap cost may not allow it, I'm afraid. If OMT (or team-Denmark) retains export freedom, then, how can a second party win any bid?

For me, the very good thing, if A140 be adopted as T31, is that Babcock can learn one of the world's front-line design/technology. There are many things UK ship building industry can learn from abroad. IVER HUITFELDT class were built in Estonian shipyard, which had not many experience on escort building, and integrate their fighting system in Denmark (with large support from Navy man-power). Babcock also has no escort building history, but has CMS integration experience on T23 LIFEX program.

It looks like a good match for Babcock.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I have no objection here. A140 design is very capable. My point is, T31 is NOT capable
At the outset maybe, but with the recent budget increase for the MOD could an increased spec now be a possibility for the T31?

In the end it will come down to whether RN wants more capable vessels or just more vessels.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I have no objection here. A140 design is very capable. My point is, T31 is NOT capable
At the outset maybe, but with the recent budget increase for the MOD could an increased spec now be a possibility for the T31?

In the end it will come down to whether RN wants more capable vessels or just more vessels.
but now that we have more money, would you still choose to spend it this way?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

It should be remembered when type 23 entered service is didn’t have a combat management system and a number of other things didn’t work either, it has evolved over time to what we have today. So what we start out with is less important than is possible.

I would add that from listening to and reading material on asw from people who do it, it is a not a case off one design catches all. There is a difference to hunting ssn, ssbn and hunting ssk. Type 26 is designed around hunting the former, a140 along with other designs could be, if equipped correctly perfectly capable of hunting the later. Not to mention a whole host of other capabilities so the, this is better than that is not that helpful.

I would add the “extra” money for defence simply means the cuts won’t be as brutal as sdsr2010 the budget remains unaffordable

The single largest problem I have with the question of choosing the a140 design is how can we build such a capable vessel and equip it initially at least almost identically to a type 26 yet one has a budget of £250m the other over a billion.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

jedibeeftrix wrote:but now that we have more money, would you still choose to spend it this way?
Ideally no, but we are where we are. I would much rather see a RN frigate design that was wholly British designed and built. Something that could take on the FTI in the export market and give British industry an edge against the foreign competition. Venator would have been a good place to start with its 18m beam but a modified Leander with proper 21st century frigate dimensions is probably more realistic. Unfortunately none of this is likely to happen.

The T31 saga thus far is a politically inspired knee jerk reaction to another dismal failure of a flagship MOD procurement programme. The T26 will be a fine vessel but it's come at great cost. A simplified GP T26 is very tempting but at £650m to £700m would two A140's actually be a better bet? Maybe, especially in a hybrid propulsion system was added.

Realistically the T31 is going to happen in some form so the A140 is probably the best choice. However I suspect additional OPV's are also going to be part of an affordable solution to HMG's global ambitions.

Given the money now available something along these lines may be viable:

6x T45
8x T26
6x T31 - four with 2150/2087 for TAPS and LiTM escorts, two full Iver Huitfieldt for CSG goalkeeper
5x RB2 - UK EEZ patrol, FRE and reserve
5x RB3 or 105m Leander - global forward based

This would give the UK 12 ASW frigates and free up 3 or 4 T26's and 1 or 2 T45's for deployments outside of the CSG.

20 destroyers/frigates and 10 patrol vessels does not seem excessive and the mixture of Tier1/Tier2/OPV's would keep costs to within an acceptable level. The 30 vessel total would give RN lots of options that haven't been available for a while.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me right now if there is/was more money I would be looking to push A-140 as the Type 31 with a budget up to 310 to 330 million per ship around 1/3 the cost of Type 26 and for that I would be looking for a ship like so.

Good 3D/4D radar
good CMS
good HMS
good soft kill systsem
1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 to 30 CAMM , 8 x NSM , FFNBW 2 x Phalanx

I would next look to keep the River B1's and up arm the B2's like so

Fit 1 x 40mm and 2 x 30mm with LMM / Starstreak plus push for a UAV system with I master radar

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The T31, or for that matter any other Escort / Patrol class that is implemented using a unique design and kit (to what’s currently in the RN) and stops at 5 or 6 ships is a complete waste of money.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote:Good 3D/4D radar
good CMS
good HMS
good soft kill systsem
1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 to 30 CAMM , 8 x NSM , FFNBW 2 x Phalanx
Baring the 76mm gun as opposed to a 5” this is what a type 26 will be equipped with at launch. So how can one be built at a 3rd of the cost of the other? Acoustic quietening can’t cost 700m per hull.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

If the A140 design is selected and used as intended - a basic stop gap design - when the T26's start to replace the T23 in the late 2030's would it be a good idea to sell on the bum basic A140's for more T26 ( maybe less mk 41 VLS to save initial costs-abeit not a lot ! ) if money could be made available for maybe a down armed version ? as the A140 would still have lots of life left & could upgraded for a second party,

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 »

jedibeeftrix wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I have no objection here. A140 design is very capable. My point is, T31 is NOT capable
At the outset maybe, but with the recent budget increase for the MOD could an increased spec now be a possibility for the T31?
In the end it will come down to whether RN wants more capable vessels or just more vessels.
but now that we have more money, would you still choose to spend it this way?
If we have additional 20B GBP for 10 years from now, firstly MOD need to fill the ~10B GBP black hole in equipment budget. After that, I will hope to use ~3B for pay rise (retaining full-time trained man-power is the top-of-the-top priority), another ~2B for other recruiting/life-standard improvements, and another ~5B to improve the ammo stock. These basic issues must be handled with much much higher priority than any fancy equipments, and I'm sure my list lacks more.

But, if we really want fancy new equipments, and 20B GBP is real (= "2B GBP more" continues for 10 years), many options may be possible if with total cost of ~2B GBP or less (by sacrificing ~2B GBP from the money listed up there). I guess.
SW1 wrote:It should be remembered when type 23 entered service is didn’t have a combat management system and a number of other things didn’t work either, it has evolved over time to what we have today. So what we start out with is less important than is possible.
Do not agree. T23 was designed with new CMS, it just came late. In other words, the CMS was already budgeted. This is completely different from T31 case = only a limited budget is there.
I would add that from listening to and reading material on asw from people who do it, it is a not a case off one design catches all. There is a difference to hunting ssn, ssbn and hunting ssk. Type 26 is designed around hunting the former, a140 along with other designs could be, if equipped correctly perfectly capable of hunting the later. Not to mention a whole host of other capabilities so the, this is better than that is not that helpful.
Agreed. It could be "introducing shallow water ASW-USV", or "adding CAPAS4CI to both T45 and T31" or just "more P-8". Many options are up there. My personal choice is, of course, more P-8. A fleet of 9 unit is far from effective, and increasing its number by 3 units (33%) will surely cost less than +33%. Increase by 6 units (66% more) to make it 15-unit fleet, will also cost less than +50%, I guess.
...The single largest problem I have with the question of choosing the a140 design is how can we build such a capable vessel and equip it initially at least almost identically to a type 26 yet one has a budget of £250m the other over a billion.
Of course, impossible. :D
Tempest414 wrote:For me right now if there is/was more money I would be looking to push A-140 as the Type 31 with a budget up to 310 to 330 million per ship around 1/3 the cost of Type 26 and for that I would be looking for a ship like so.

Good 3D/4D radar
good CMS
good HMS
good soft kill systsem
1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 to 30 CAMM , 8 x NSM , FFNBW 2 x Phalanx

I would next look to keep the River B1's and up arm the B2's like so

Fit 1 x 40mm and 2 x 30mm with LMM / Starstreak plus push for a UAV system with I master radar
Not far from what I shall propose. But, more P-8 will be my first choice, if it is to improve ASW. For T31e, I will also not add hull-mounted-sonar (may be just torpedo-detection and mine-avoidance ones), but add CAPTAS1 or Atlas ACTAS.

# Especially the latter if it were to be carried on ASW-USVs = commonality in logistic as well as sound spectra. Enemy sub will see difficulty to understand if the ACTAS ping-signal is from T31e or from a USV. If it is former, enemy sub may attack it, but if it is USV, it will not.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:just "more P-8". Many options are up there
Or buy more merlins.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by inch »

It's the t31 announced winner definitely @ dsei this week or just wishful thinking ?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

SW1 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Good 3D/4D radar
good CMS
good HMS
good soft kill systsem
1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 to 30 CAMM , 8 x NSM , FFNBW 2 x Phalanx
Baring the 76mm gun as opposed to a 5” this is what a type 26 will be equipped with at launch. So how can one be built at a 3rd of the cost of the other? Acoustic quietening can’t cost 700m per hull.
It seems that it can. "World beating" price.
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 »

SW1 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Good 3D/4D radar
good CMS
good HMS
good soft kill systsem
1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 to 30 CAMM , 8 x NSM , FFNBW 2 x Phalanx
Baring the 76mm gun as opposed to a 5” this is what a type 26 will be equipped with at launch.
Why you think so?

When comparing OH Perry class FFG and Spruance class DD, apparently the former is better armed (other than NGFS capability provided by two 5' guns). But, their actual capability was very different, because of the big difference in their CMS. I think the same is true with T26 and T31, or even more. T26 and T31e differs in cost by a factor of 4. I understand Spruance and FFG7 does not differ that much.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

abc123 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Good 3D/4D radar
good CMS
good HMS
good soft kill systsem
1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 to 30 CAMM , 8 x NSM , FFNBW 2 x Phalanx
Baring the 76mm gun as opposed to a 5” this is what a type 26 will be equipped with at launch. So how can one be built at a 3rd of the cost of the other? Acoustic quietening can’t cost 700m per hull.
It seems that it can. "World beating" price.
Or are we starting another defence program with an inadequate budget for what we expect it to deliver only to discover so half way into the build. We have form

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Good 3D/4D radar
good CMS
good HMS
good soft kill systsem
1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 to 30 CAMM , 8 x NSM , FFNBW 2 x Phalanx
Baring the 76mm gun as opposed to a 5” this is what a type 26 will be equipped with at launch.
Why you think so?

When comparing OH Perry class FFG and Spruance class DD, apparently the former is better armed (other than NGFS capability provided by two 5' guns). But, their actual capability was very different, because of the big difference in their CMS. I think the same is true with T26 and T31, or even more. T26 and T31e differs in cost by a factor of 4. I understand Spruance and FFG7 does not differ that much.
Well if you two almost identically armed ships then would it not be logical to assume they would require roughly equivalent combat management systems to employ the weapons they carry.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote: add another £100M or more to the cost.....at which point you are approaching the price of an Arleigh Burke, with its much superiour radars , and 3 times as many missiles.
A pity that the above post [ most informative!] does not separate the comment(s) from the "stupid" postulations.

Just to say that the Canadian assessment of AB for them was.... @2bn!
-- ok, Canada yards add ' BIT' but what is the next flight going for? with all the economies of a long run ?
l
I'll freely admit that the comparison to the AB was a bit hyperbolic......but i think my point stands.....i believe the average cost of a Fl IIA Burke was about $1.8B but i've seen a price as low as 1.5 being quoted for individual DDG-51s........regardless, its still substantially more that even the highest estimate used for T26.........However an AB has significant capabilities in all three domains AAW,ASuW and ASW, much larger capacity and offensive power, plus some "bells and whistles" that T26 wont have (ie CEC/NIFC-CA, BMD etc) .....In terms of VFM, i think you could argue its superiour to the latter.

Wrt the Canadians, i would be very wary of using them as a yardstick for anything, with an estimated +$60B CAN dollars for building (maybe) 15 T26 derivatives ,they make even the Australians look cheap. Their acquisition system and processes is arguably the most jacked up in the entire western world.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Operating a fleet with two levels of escort platforms like the French and Italians would be new territory for the RN but with the T-31e having greater range than either of the French and Italian platforms it could still be a very useful platform for the Royal Navy. This is not the first time the Royal Navy has tried such an idea and it might work if there is a management plan for the platform through its service life. The size of the A140 would make the additional of new or improvements in existing capabilities far more easier and cost effective. IF everything of use moving forward is removed form the five GP T-23s and transferred to the T-31e such as the Artisan, Sea Ceptor 30mm RWS and so the baseline design could be marginally better than the budget implies. An open architecture CMS would allow additional capabilities to be installed with far less cost and work that say in the latest T-23 overhaul, making the take up of such an option far more attractive to the MoD and Treasury. What this mean for future warship construction could be interesting. If the experiment with the T-31e is a success we could see more of an evolves design being built, hopefully negating the inflationary pressures on warship construction allowing numbers to be retained or even increased. This could intern allow the replacement of the T-45 to be a more multirole platform more akin to the USN's AB. An eventual fleet of say 6 T-26*, 8 T-47** and 6 T-33*** around the late 2030s early 2040s would be an optimistic result.

* With the T-26 I see the second batch of five being built to an improved standard, based on what has been learnt for building the initial three and what both Canada and Australia have learnt from their designs. If this is the case I can see at least one of the initial batch of T-26 being brought up to the same standard but also that one or two could be sold to fund such work.

** This would be the multi role evolution of the T-26 to replace the T-45, adding the AAW role to the platform whist retaining its existing capabilities with regards to ASW and also improving it's general abilities.

*** This would be an evolution of the chosen T-31e which would be a capable tier 2 escort and general purpose platform.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

SW1 wrote: I would add that from listening to and reading material on asw from people who do it, it is a not a case off one design catches all. There is a difference to hunting ssn, ssbn and hunting ssk. Type 26 is designed around hunting the former, a140 along with other designs could be, if equipped correctly perfectly capable of hunting the later.
Exactly.....and especially in confined waters like the multilayered and very noisy Baltic Ocean (or Mediterranean sea and Persian Gulf), where the T26s super quiet hull and propulsion is all but useless, because you really have to go to active sonar to find anything. Low self noise is mostly important when doing asw on the open ocean

The single largest problem I have with the question of choosing the a140 design is how can we build such a capable vessel and equip it initially at least almost identically to a type 26 yet one has a budget of £250m the other over a billion
.

BAE profit margins? :lol: ......No seriously speaking i do think that the larger T26 with its complex propulsion system and high level of quietening does merit a substantially bigger price tag, just not one that is almost twice that of an Italian FREMM, which is for all intents and purposes a very similar vessel both in terms of size and capability. While you can to some extent justify T26 cost relative to the T31 by citing its greater performance and capability.......its a lot harder when comparing to the €600M FREMM IT. IMHO it IS overpriced by at least 20-25%.....and that is likely BAEs fault.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:
SW1 wrote: I would add that from listening to and reading material on asw from people who do it, it is a not a case off one design catches all. There is a difference to hunting ssn, ssbn and hunting ssk. Type 26 is designed around hunting the former, a140 along with other designs could be, if equipped correctly perfectly capable of hunting the later.
Exactly.....and especially in confined waters like the multilayered and very noisy Baltic Ocean (or Mediterranean sea and Persian Gulf), where the T26s super quiet hull and propulsion is all but useless, because you really have to go to active sonar to find anything. Low self noise is mostly important when doing asw on the open ocean

The single largest problem I have with the question of choosing the a140 design is how can we build such a capable vessel and equip it initially at least almost identically to a type 26 yet one has a budget of £250m the other over a billion
.

BAE profit margins? :lol: ......No seriously speaking i do think that the larger T26 with its complex propulsion system and high level of quietening does merit a substantially bigger price tag, just not one that is almost twice that of an Italian FREMM, which is for all intents and purposes a very similar vessel both in terms of size and capability. While you can to some extent justify T26 cost relative to the T31 by citing its greater performance and capability.......its a lot harder when comparing to the €600M FREMM IT. IMHO it IS overpriced by at least 20-25%.....and that is likely BAEs fault.
I’m really not one to defend BAE but can we really blame them in this instance,

1 - when we look at it most accept the British ship building is 15-30% less efficient than our European counterparts, this is due to lack of investment caused my uncertain order books ( HMGs fault through reduce fleet size and delays in orders )

2 - T26 costs have increased due to the artificial slow down in the build rate to drag out the 8 vessels through to the T45 replacement. This again is HMGs fault.

It’s widely accepted that any additional T26s are likely to cost around the £750m mark, this isn’t bad when the above it taken in to account.

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 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:
SW1 wrote:The single largest problem I have with the question of choosing the a140 design is how can we build such a capable vessel and equip it initially at least almost identically to a type 26 yet one has a budget of £250m the other over a billion
.
BAE profit margins? :lol: ......No seriously speaking i do think that the larger T26 with its complex propulsion system and high level of quietening does merit a substantially bigger price tag, just not one that is almost twice that of an Italian FREMM, which is for all intents and purposes a very similar vessel both in terms of size and capability. While you can to some extent justify T26 cost relative to the T31 by citing its greater performance and capability.......its a lot harder when comparing to the €600M FREMM IT. IMHO it IS overpriced by at least 20-25%.....and that is likely BAEs fault.
Jake1992 wrote:I’m really not one to defend BAE but can we really blame them in this instance,
1 - when we look at it most accept the British ship building is 15-30% less efficient than our European counterparts, this is due to lack of investment caused my uncertain order books ( HMGs fault through reduce fleet size and delays in orders )
2 - T26 costs have increased due to the artificial slow down in the build rate to drag out the 8 vessels through to the T45 replacement. This again is HMGs fault.
It’s widely accepted that any additional T26s are likely to cost around the £750m mark, this isn’t bad when the above it taken in to account.
FREMM in France cost from Senate report on 2014 (sorry from wiki):
The 11 ships would cost €670 million (~US$760m) each in FY2014, or €860m (~US$980m) including development costs.

This means, FREMM of France is
- 600M GBP in unit cost
- 780M GBP in average cost
- if with 11 unit program as of 2014 (now it is 6 FREMM, 2 FREMM DA, and 5 FTI)

If we assume the unit cost to be the cost needed to add 1 more hull, "the design+initial cost" (including inefficiency in training curve at the beginning) of a FREMM frigate is (860-670)*11 = €2090M, equivalent to 3 unit-cost, in 2014 price.

Three T26 ordered with 3.7B GBP on 2017. If with "the design+initial cost equivalent to 3 unit cost" + "3 unit cost", it means the unit cost (= cost of the 9th hull) could be as low as 620M GBP.

But,
- T26 is 8 hull program, while FREMM's plan at 2014 was for 11, may be the learning curve does not evolve enough
- FREMM has many new technologies for France, while most of the T26's are payed by T23 LIFEX program. Thus, "the design+initial cost" could be less than 3 unit cost equivalent.
Factoring these two, I am guessing "the design+initial cost" of T26 is ~2 unit cost equivalent. Dividing 3.7B with 5 (=2+3), we get the 750M GBP unit cost in 2017 price.

Inflation corrected, FREMM unit cost shall be ~6% more in 2017 (on paper), so roughly speaking T26 unit cost will be 20% higher than FREMM. Including the larger size, better (we guess) quitization, "not that bad" is my impression. (Of course, all these estimation has 10-20% error or even more. Directly comparing French to UK cost may not be good (both include initial support etc., but no detail is known).)

Note: I am not saying T26 is cheap, nor built more efficiently than FREMM. I agree to others' estimation that UK ship-building industry might be 10-20% "inefficient" (in cost) compared to other country's ship builders. (If not, UK warships must have been seeing much more export success). I am just saying, including this disadvantage (as well as omitting the frigate factory), T26 build cost by BAES is "not that bad" there.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:the type 23 has a smaller underwater noise signature and is a couple of knots faster ..That is it!
Plus there is no sonar. The Navy will be operating an escort that has zero viability across one of the most challenging domains, unlike it's predecessor. That is a capability climb down no matter how you phrase it.
MikeKiloPapa wrote:And lets be frank ......the only reason some here dont like it , is because it isnt British
For me, that doesn't matter iota. The British entry is a stretched patrol boat after all.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:1 BILLION POUND for an ASW "frigate", even if it is allegedly going to be the best, is a very steep price, for something that has very basic capabilities in the other domains.
  • It only has a capable air defence system derived from Sea Viper on the T45, with the largest surface to air missile capacity ever on an RN ship.
  • It only has the biggest gun fitted to an RN ship in decades, plus a capacity for more cruise missiles than the UK has ever used in a single conflict.
  • It only has space for more aircraft and boats than any escort in the RN's history allowing it to re-role across additional domains.
And then they've gone and wrapped it up in a massive hull filled with modern machinery, just so they can tow a high quality sonar around. It all sounds very basic, no one will buy it... :roll:
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply