Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

Why you think T26 will be kept expensive while T31/T32 can be cheap? Double standard.

Not at all double standards type 31 will be 2 billion that is up from the 1.25 I think type 32 will be 2 billion if based on a type 31 with little mods done.

Type 26 will remain at 1 billion or more if we go into batch 3 due to the extra mods that will no dout come i.e better radar CMS so on and so on plus with its slow build inflation will catch it out

[donald_of_tokyo]

Why you think T26 will be kept expensive while T31/T32 can be cheap? Double standard.

Not at all double standards type 31 will be 2 billion that is up from the 1.25 I think type 32 will be 2 billion if based on a type 31 with little mods done.

Type 26 will remain at 1 billion or more if we go into batch 3 due to the extra mods that will no dout come i.e better radar CMS so on and so on plus with its slow build inflation will catch it out

Thanks. As my proposal is for T26 lite in place of T32, so it is more T26, and not slow build. Also, it is less armed (but still much better than T31).

From here our different conclusion comes, I guess.

[tomuk]

But how much money could be saved by dumbing down?

Ignoring design modification costs

[Tempest414]

Tempest414, at least 12 of your home fleet (6 T45 and 6 T26) will be assigned to the two CBGs. The two T26s left, are likely to be be mainly bobbing up and and down in the Atlantic on TAPS/CASD escort duties with the odd jaunt up to the Barents.

This means anything that requires a fighting warship will need to be either the CBG or a SSN.

At this time we 18 escorts which means by the time you take out your 12 for the CSG and 2 for TAPS you are left with 4 poorly armed GP frigates I what I mean when I say that is Type 23 GP even with its 32 CAMM ( if it is even carrying 32 CAMM ) is all its got against air targets and other than the CAMM it has nothing more. The simple fact that most don't like is if type 31 was to get a HMS , 36 CAMM and 16 NSM it would be a every good fighting ship that would cost no more than 500 million half the cost of a Type 26 and capable of doing 3/4's of the work and to get type 26 down to the same price one would have to cut every thing that makes it better ending up with a ship that is no better

With this being said I would love nothing more than to see one more type 26 built so the batch 2 order was for 6 and then a firm commitment to the first batch of 4 T- 83 ( with T-83 being a 8 ship class )

As for the need for 12 escorts for the CSG I still feel the navy has to maintain , train and work it ships of the groups as one meaning when the carrier is in port or maintenance the rest of the group is doing the same meaning 8 escorts are at sea in port or maintenance at the very same time as the carrier's

[Repulse]

good fighting ship that would cost no more than 500 million half the cost of a Type 26

As has previously been stated the cost of a T26 is likely to drop to £800mn. If constructed at a higher tempo, and with investment in a "tier one warship factory" the cost per unit will come down, as would the T83 with the hope of getting 8 of the latter (rather than just 6 T45 replacements).

The T26 will be a capable warship of independent global operations in high risk areas. The T31 you outline would be credible, but not in the same league against peer nations. It would be a credible escort to the CBG due to the fact it will be part of a layered defence and also operating closely with other "non-acoustic optimised" hulls such as the T45, QE and Tide classes. Having said that out-layer ASW defence in war times would still require SSNs and T26s to be assigned to the CBG, but that is ok IMO.

[Tempest414]

As has previously been stated the cost of a T26 is likely to drop to £800mn.

No it has not the program cost is still 8 billion for 8 ships 1 billion per ship if we are going to play that game then type 31 is 250 million per ship that is what Ballcocks has said

In fact the only true cost we know for type 26 at this point is 3.7 billion for 3 ships = 1.23 billion per ship meaning even if the next 5 were contracted for 800 million per ship the average per ship would still be 930 million each

[Ron5]

Type 26 will remain at 1 billion or more if we go into batch 3 due to the extra mods that will no dout come i.e better radar CMS so on and so on plus with its slow build inflation will catch it out

Bae says 800 million now coming down 20% over time.

[Ron5]

As has previously been stated the cost of a T26 is likely to drop to £800mn.

Bae says the first 3 are being built at 800 million each. That will come down 20% over the 2nd batch.

[Ron5]

As has previously been stated the cost of a T26 is likely to drop to £800mn.

No it has not the program cost is still 8 billion for 8 ships 1 billion per ship if we are going to play that game then type 31 is 250 million per ship that is what Ballcocks has said

In fact the only true cost we know for type 26 at this point is 3.7 billion for 3 ships = 1.23 billion per ship meaning even if the next 5 were contracted for 800 million per ship the average per ship would still be 930 million each

Not the only true cost, the Bae head of shipbuilding says the first 3 are being built at 800 million each. That will come down 20% over the 2nd batch.

Having said that, I think your point that the cost of GFX probably lies beyond that number is probably a good one. So yes, I would agree the point of comparison would be the shipbuilders cost i.e. 800m for the T26's vs 250m for the T31's.

[donald_of_tokyo]

As has previously been stated the cost of a T26 is likely to drop to £800mn.

No it has not the program cost is still 8 billion for 8 ships 1 billion per ship if we are going to play that game then type 31 is 250 million per ship that is what Ballcocks has said

In fact the only true cost we know for type 26 at this point is 3.7 billion for 3 ships = 1.23 billion per ship meaning even if the next 5 were contracted for 800 million per ship the average per ship would still be 930 million each

Therefore, additional T26 will be cheap. Exactly as you said. As such, "more T26" must be a strong alternative option against "T32". This is what I mean.

[Ron5]

But how much money could be saved by dumbing down?

Ignoring design modification costs

Not quite sure what point you are making. I'm a tad slow at times

Anyhoo, I think design modification costs would be tough for us to estimate. On the one hand, you have a crack t26 design team that's spent the best part of a decade in digitally designing the T26 then modifying for the Australian and Canadian versions. I'd guess they would be at the very top of their game. So highly productive. And being digitally designed would in theory enable quicker and more accurate changes to be made and evaluated.

And then some of the changes I mentioned would cost next to nothing. For example, removing Phalanx would just mean not fitting the necessary connections, magazines, cabinets and terminals. Delete, delete, delete. Same for excess command & communication gear.

Removing the Mk 41's and placing all 48 the CAMM together forward of the bridge would also appear to be low cost. Just a matter of rearranging some steel bracing and rerouting cables.

On the other hand, swapping in diesels for gas turbines & main gearbox would be non trivial as would replacing the funnel structure with an extended mission bay. All kinds of stuff would have to be reworked.

Very hard for me to estimate, especially not knowing how much it cost, or would cost, to modify the IH into T31, then into the T32 or the T26 into the Hunter etc etc.

So in the absence of anything else, why not assume the same design costs for T26-lite as for T32? To leave a straight fight between construction costs?

So my very unscientific 500m for T26-lite vs what for the T32?

Or 500m for a top tier CBG escort vs a 3rd rate mothership?

[NickC]

As has previously been stated the cost of a T26 is likely to drop to £800mn.

No it has not the program cost is still 8 billion for 8 ships 1 billion per ship if we are going to play that game then type 31 is 250 million per ship that is what Ballcocks has said

In fact the only true cost we know for type 26 at this point is 3.7 billion for 3 ships = 1.23 billion per ship meaning even if the next 5 were contracted for 800 million per ship the average per ship would still be 930 million each

The MoD 2018 Defence Equipment Plan quoted the first three T26 expected cost to completion at approval as £4,346 million, in 2019 the figure quoted dropped to £3,700 million, re the reduction of £646 million, small print notes “Type 26 Frigates. PPST19 does not include Demonstration Phase approval costs as this element of the incremental approval concluded in 2018”.

If these figures correct the first three ships to cost ~ £1,450 million each including the Demonstration Phase costs, to meet £8 billion budget for the eight ships the final five would need to come in at max of ~ £730 million each for an average cost of £1 billion each.

[Tempest414]

As has previously been stated the cost of a T26 is likely to drop to £800mn.

Bae says the first 3 are being built at 800 million each. That will come down 20% over the 2nd batch.

It is not hard to see how the next five will be 20% less as they will be using second hand radars and sonars taken from the T-23's well used I would think

[Tempest414]

As has previously been stated the cost of a T26 is likely to drop to £800mn.

No it has not the program cost is still 8 billion for 8 ships 1 billion per ship if we are going to play that game then type 31 is 250 million per ship that is what Ballcocks has said

In fact the only true cost we know for type 26 at this point is 3.7 billion for 3 ships = 1.23 billion per ship meaning even if the next 5 were contracted for 800 million per ship the average per ship would still be 930 million each

Therefore, additional T26 will be cheap. Exactly as you said. As such, "more T26" must be a strong alternative option against "T32". This is what I mean.

however we must apply the same to type 32 if it is A140 based ship with a few tweeks here and there by the time Babcocks get to ship five the cost must come down and even if it dose not you would still have to gut every thing out of T-26 that makes it a type 26

No matter how hard I or anyone else wishes I can't see type 26 dropping below 700 million per ship

[donald_of_tokyo]

...Therefore, additional T26 will be cheap. Exactly as you said. As such, "more T26" must be a strong alternative option against "T32". This is what I mean.

however we must apply the same to type 32 if it is A140 based ship with a few tweeks here and there by the time Babcocks get to ship five the cost must come down and even if it dose not you would still have to gut every thing out of T-26 that makes it a type 26

No matter how hard I or anyone else wishes I can't see type 26 dropping below 700 million per ship

No problem with the two points here. So, I shall make it clear.

I am comparing "newly designed T32" vs "more T26". Newly design T32 here is with a good drone handling and 2nd-rate escort-level fighting capability. It needs design and initial cost (new) and needs good money to build (a bit complex). This will be vital for Babcock to establish escort designing capability (they completely lack it now). Good and bad.

The third candidate is "T31 mod". And, as you pointed out, it will be the cheapest T32 solution if modification is modest. As T31 is very limited in droned handling, in place, RN shall just expand the Mine Countermeasure Logistic Support Vessel (MCLSV) program to be a "ALL Drones Logistic Support Vessel".

A fully kitted T31 (24x CAMM, 1x 57mm, 2x 40mm, 8 I-SSGW, 1 Wildcat + 2-4 drones, and a hull-sonar, with SeaSentor STDS) will cost only £300-350M. (Here I assumed that current T31 being £200M per unit (without SeaCeptor system nor other GFXs), excluding initial cost. Adding full SeaCeptor system (24 CAMM), installing ASW systems and SSGW, and expanding the CMS analysis power, will make it £300-350M, in my guess). So, if with £2B total money, 6 hulls might doable.

But, in this case, I shall propose to increase BOTH T26 AND T31 numbers. One more T26 with £700-800M, and 4 more T32B2 with £1.2-1.3B. This is because, I do not think there are many needs for "2nd-tier escorts" in RN (because many can be provided from Europian NATO allies). "One more T26" will be very important.

If T32 is a newly designed "2nd-tier escort with good drone-support", it has it own meaning, I agree. And in this case, "more T26" vs "newly designed T32" will make a good competition (as T26 is already so-so good at drone handling). If T32 be a slightly modified T31 as 2nd-tier escort, "more T26" shall come along with it. In short, if RN fleet are to expand, I think T26 number shall also expand because it is the main stay of RN escort fleet.

[Repulse]

This is because, I do not think there are many needs for "2nd-tier escorts”

Beyond the politics of frigate numbers I completely agree with this. The days of the RN being a global constabulary force are long gone. Nor is a tier 2 North Atlantic convoy escort force a priority given limited funds.

What the RN needs to be globally engaged/ aware, and ultimately focused on being a war fighting force. This means tier one assets backed by enablers.

Part of the enablement force is forward Surveillance, Survey and familiarisation of working with local forces. The OPVs, Echos and Protector are perfect for the task IMO as they provide this without an expensive footprint / unnecessarily raising tensions.

This is why I’ve never really understood diverting precious resources to a half baked T31 away from more T26s / OPVs (or MHPCs).

FFBNW is tempting, but worthless. My view is that any future conflict with Russia or China is likely to come with little warning and will be extremely violent and be over in days not months. Even if there was a warning and government took it seriously, the upgrading of RN tier 2 frigates would be seen as an escalating move, so likely to be resisted.

[BB85]

Russia invading Ukraine is one thing, invading NATO countries would be another. They are outmatched on the air and their land forces would be canon fodder in an all out war.
The RN is really only in the Pacific for moral support, in the event of a war with China our contribution would be small compared to the US, Japan and S Korea.

[Repulse]

BB85, on China I agree, though any contribution will need to be meaningful, and definitely not the current T31 planned.

On Russia it’s more complex - a full scale invasion of Western (NATO) Europe is unlikely, but everything U.K. to that is both possible and increasingly probable.

The thing that is unknown, when (not if) Taiwan is invaded how far towards total war will the US push it?

[Jake1992]

BB85, on China I agree, though any contribution will need to be meaningful, and definitely not the current T31 planned.

On Russia it’s more complex - a full scale invasion of Western (NATO) Europe is unlikely, but everything U.K. to that is both possible and increasingly probable.

The thing that is unknown, when (not if) Taiwan is invaded how far towards total war will the US push it?

This is why at the very least we seem to be heading to a new Cold War but this time on two front with both China and Russia.
There’s then the chance of full out war with China like you mentioned but the question Iv been wondering in this regard is if we would be pull in this war on a more full scale through things like the 5 powers agreements, how far would this war spread would it be kept solely around Taiwan or spread to the greater South China Sea area.

In either of the the above HMG really need to take a good look and realise we no longer live in peaceful times and it’s only going to get worse. They need to pull there respective heads out and stop pretending we spend enough on defence and plan to start to move closer to 3% of gdp like it was during the first Cold War.

[SW1]

This is why at the very least we seem to be heading to a new Cold War but this time on two front with both China and Russia.

It was on two fronts the last time! The Korean and Vietnam wars and the sino-soviet agreements post the Chinese civil war and Mao coming to power in 1949 and the formation of SEATO

[Tempest414]

The RN is really only in the Pacific for moral support, in the event of a war with China our contribution would be small compared to the US, Japan and S Korea.

and this is why it is important the Australia , Canada , New Zealand and the UK from a Pacific Battle group around the UK Carriers. As I have said in the past this could have

1 x Carrier , 1 x LHD , 2 x LSD's , 3 x Destroyers , 9 x Frigates , 1 x SSN , 3 x SSK , 4 x Tanker/ SSS plus 2000 embarked troops

This force could be tasked in the south of SCS with a US / Japan force in the centre and a US / Korean force in the North both based round the US carriers

[SW1]

The RN is really only in the Pacific for moral support, in the event of a war with China our contribution would be small compared to the US, Japan and S Korea.

and this is why it is important the Australia , Canada , New Zealand and the UK from a Pacific Battle group around the UK Carriers. As I have said in the past this could have

1 x Carrier , 1 x LHD , 2 x LSD's , 3 x Destroyers , 9 x Frigates , 1 x SSN , 3 x SSK , 4 x Tanker/ SSS plus 2000 embarked troops

This force could be tasked in the south of SCS with a US / Japan force in the centre and a US / Korean force in the North both based round the US carriers

Does that not suggest the opposite, we should be sending a tanker, sub or frigate to support an Australian or Canadian or Japanese battle group not the other way round we are the token player not the lead.

[Tempest414]

No where did I say the UK should lead this force it would be a multi national force that could be commanded by Australia or Canada plus I did not know that Australia and Japan had a strike carrier & SSN we could fall in behind

However this is why I would also like to see a EoS command with 3 x Type 31 , 2 x type 32 , 1 x Bay , 1 x Wave at its heart

[SW1]

No where did I say the UK should lead this force it would be a multi national force that could be commanded by Australia or Canada plus I did not know that Australia and Japan had a strike carrier & SSN we could fall in behind

However this is why I would also like to see a EoS command with 3 x Type 31 , 2 x type 32 , 1 x Bay , 1 x Wave at its heart

So someone else commands the carrier we send? Well australia and Japan both have carriers available and they can put a handful of f35s on them if they wish our wanted as Japan is in the process of doing just like ours.

The Uk sending a handful of fastjets to the pacific barely moves the dial with allies in the region. Singapore, Australia and Japan combined have nearly 500 in the region alone.

[Tempest414]

So when it kits off with China Australia and Canada phone the UK and say we don't need your Carrier strike group but a tanker would useful if you one

And yes Japan is working on getting a light carrier but the RAN only have Helicopter LHD's