Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Ron5]

Well following the discussion on MODNET Im absolutely certain that there is no chance in hell of the T31 being cancelled in favour of one or two more T26, or even of it being replaced with T26 light. Sadly there is just too much politically at stake as regards this programme, and too much face was lost when they pulled it the first time, let alone if they were to cancel it outright. Also and again very sadly I just cant see any sign at all of Babcock and Arrowhead coming back from the grave so what we will end up with is a one horse race, and Leander is it. I of course very much hope I am wrong and Euronaval might be the moment we see a re-launch by Babcock and Team 31, but personally I just cant see it happening now, so if Leander turns out to be armed and equipped much as the CGI suggests, even if initially FFBNW, it wont be the worst result.

However! What really lets it down as currently configured and as I have said before is the number of Sea Ceptor or CAMM. In the brochure they have only committed to '12 plus' and it is the 'plus' which needs to be better defined. If we accept that T31 is to have a role in a general war (and I know some on here do not) then that must surely be that of 'goal keeper' ie in providing AAW protection to the CTG, ARG and the 'Fleet train' ,Tide Class tankers and SSS. The T26 is supposed to be optimised for ASW and if they are to perform the role properly for noise reasons alone they cannot be tied to providing close in protection to the Carrier group, and the same applies to the T45 of which we already have too few and as regards PAAMS and AAW need to be deployed at distance to have best effect.

So to our beloved 'mushrooms'! Like most I can certainly see the logic when it came to the T23's in simply fitting inserts to the existing Sea Wolf tubes which negates the need to cut up the hull.By all accounts this has worked well and hence the 'mushrooms'. What I cannot understand however and what is almost beyond redemption is the seemingly ludicrous decision to fit the 'mushrooms' to subsequent classes of ships namely T26 and T31, particularly as Land Ceptor, the RA version, seems to manage perfectly well without. By sticking with the 'mushrooms' we would appear to totally negate one of the main advantages of CAMM ie its light weight, simplicity of launch and the ability to quad pack in a very tight space.

With this in mind and taking the Leander design as currently on offer or as so would appear, if you study the CGI then even if for whatever reason we do stick with the 'mushrooms' with a simple redesign we should still be able to get much more 'bang for our buck'. Looking at the cut out below, the 'mushroom tubs' themselves look easily big enough to insert another row giving 9 missiles per 'tub' and it looks as if there could even be room for 12, which would give you a very respectable 18 or 24 missiles forward. If we were then to add another couple of 'tubs' amidships in place of the MK41, or god forbid ditch an ISO, then even without lengthening or substantially modifying the design we would have a respectable load out of 36, or 48 missiles which would give it an effective war fighting role and one at which it could be well up to the job.

T31 RN Mushrooms - Best.jpg

Excellent. Could not agree more.

[Ron5]

Firstly, the CAMM ER programme is at risk, mainly due to Italian politics.

https://www.janes.com/article/83562/ita ... me-at-risk

Secondly, the grapevine is saying that MOD expects the same three consortia as before to respond to the T31 PQQ.

And finally, I suspect/guess the desire to reuse the "mushrooms" is driven by the wish to avoid any trial and re-qualification costs. Yes you could probably squeeze quite a few more CAMM cells into the current unit, but that might trigger a need for more launch trials and safety qualification.

7 years to figure out how to add a bigger booster - yikes. I thought they had at least done some firing trials.

Wouldn't the mushrooms still need qualification when fitted to a different ship? Hard to imagine no firing trials for a Type 31.

[Ron5]

the grapevine is saying that MOD expects the same three consortia as before to respond to the T31 PQQ.

Has the third bidder been confirmed as the German consortium? Any idea what design they initially proposed?

The FT article this morning said Atlas Electrnik was a possible 3rd bidder but I wouldn't put too much store into that. The rest of the article was just cut & paste of old material.

[Ron5]

I'm suggesting a full width hangar. You and and I think alike, I've scratched my head over the 30mm,

I worked on this a while ago and I think I have the solution. It's very simple really.

Normally I would mock it up and show you but I can't as doing that has now been banned and we 'have been warned' so the post will just be deleted

I think you are mistaken. This would be fine. Personally I think you cross the line with fanciful ideas like a Type 26 with a Type 45 superstructure. I doubt if anyone would have a problem with a decent Leander rendering with a full width hangar.

Anyhow, if you get banned I'll visit you in the pokie

[Ron5]

the grapevine is saying that MOD expects the same three consortia as before to respond to the T31 PQQ.

Has the third bidder been confirmed as the German consortium? Any idea what design they initially proposed?

Jane's has reported that it is 'rumoured' that the third bidding teams was Atlas/TKMS. If true, then a TKMS design would to be expected.

But why is this third bidder keeping so silent?

One answer might be that MOD would like all bidders to remain silent. I would not be surprised if MOD wants to keep a tight lid on all information, so that the selection is kept within the walls of MOD, and not out in the open in a public debate. (If so, then CL and Babcock might have had a bit of a ticking off; may explain the rolling back of the public side of the Babcock bid.)

Another answer might be contractual. As has been pointed out, between CL and Babcock most of the UK shipyards appear to be committed, leaving none left for a third bidder. However, were this third bidder to win, then I would not be surprised for all the shipyards then to want to become a partner of the winning bid. A few such tentative contractual arrangements might already be in place, or at least have been discussed. But it would be very understandable for all parties to want to keep this quite, so as not to publicly undermine their primary bids.

Mmmm I'm a bit doubtful on these ideas.

The MoD/Treasury would welcome as much publicity as possible for the Type 31 program as that would bolster the NSS claims that they would be overrun with interest because of its wonderful new ideas that would attract dozens of non-traditional warship builders. The fact that this claim has proven to be an absolute dud (who would have thought it), they would still like to be seen as attracting multiple bidders. Not just the same old.

My guess is that the Germans were told if they wanted anymore UK business they'd better shove in a bid and their response was to do as little as possible. There's some evidence for this as a couple of newspapers have reported the MoD has leaned on other companies outside of the big two.

Anyhow, the 3rd bid was not compliant.

As for the contractual idea, not sure how that would work. The final build contract has to be bid with final costings. How would a shipyard, say Harland Wolf, supply firm costings to two competing bidders for two different designs at the same time as keeping all bids confidential to each other. And how would risk sharing be negotiated? Would seem to be a nightmare to me.

[Ron5]

There's three arguments that I refuse to accept:

1. Kit that costs more is automatically better than kit that costs less. That's absolute bollox as can be seen on any trip to a shopping mall or defence exhibition. That would say all American ships are automatically better than everyone elses because they cost more. Ha, let me introduce you to the LCS.

2. Kit that doesn't have a great international sales record is inferior. More bollox. Defence kit is bought every day for dozens of reasons that have zero to do with technical excellence. If anything purchased has an explanation as to why it was selected, fine. But without explanation, you cannot assume technical superiority.

3. Kit that uses more modern technology is inherently better than kit that doesn't. Somebody said rifled guns immediately made all smoothbores obsolete yet over on the tank thread, everyone says Leopard has a better gun than Challenger. It's the implementation of any technology that matters, not the technology itself.

First of all, thanks for your reply, and most of all, I think your proposal direction is positive and I like it. We do have several issue we agree to disagree, but that's it, no problem as I understand.

<On Leander>
I have no objection to your three items. Following is my point:

- costing of ship building between France and UK looks similar, as I understand. (It differs a lot in USA, as well as inAustralia (Hunt class vs City class), or in Japan. It depends also on "what is included"). This is the reason I am comparing Leander with FTI, not LCS, nor RAN Hunt class, nor JMSDF FFM.

- We already had a long discussion 2-3 years ago with Shark-bait-san and you and others on equipment costs, and my conclusion is that summing up each equipment never can explain the cost difference. I have an impression it is x3 or even x5, and I "think" it is because of integration into CMS.

- CMS license cost must differ a lot between River B2 and T26, for sure. I am not surprised it differs by x10. I understand "CMS-1" as a "scalable CMS (by BAE)" is equivalent to "RedHat Linux server package with blah-blah support". If so, costing shall be the same when you buy "server + software" package off the shelf. Cost differs a lot depending on the CPU power, memory size, application-software, including their maintenance / upgrade load.

One thing to add is, I fear "too much addition" to Leander may hit the well-known problem ; "too compact/complex ship's cost start rising because of integration difficulty". I am looking at Leander as a 3650t FLD ship, as a 250M GBP average cost (= ~210M GBP unit cost) ship, which is 15% smaller in weight and less than half in unit cost of a 4200t FLD/470M GBP unit cost FTI. I think FTI is already densely packed. So, similar level of equipping will not be easy.

<On my stance>
Being optimistic in cost estimation is not the way I go. I personally had little difficulty in the past, regarding the costs of, say, T26. When it raised a lot (forcing reduction in hull number 13 --> 8), what I thought was "as expected" not "a surprise". (*1). T26 is capable than FREMM, aiming at more quiet hull, has mission bay, and is larger. Thus T26 being 20-30% expensive than FREMM (in unit cost) is no surprise.

Your Super Leander is nearly as capable as FTI in ASW, less in AAW but sufficient for a frigate, and similarly capable in other tasks, and FTI is 15% larger than Leander. So, 350-380M GBP (75% of 470M) with CAPTAS and 24 CAMM, without Mk.41 nor Merlin, is my bet. Not saying I am correct. Just saying I have a different point of view.

This is forum, to share news, informations, and different point of views.


*: I did not believe the "steel is cheap and air is free" argument. It is true, but it works only if you keep the additional space "empty", which is almost impossible in warship. See Bay class, it works well. But, it is with very limited damage control standard = not much different from merchant vessel. Very different from a warship.

Great comment Donald-san!!!!

I would only make one point in return.

The whole premise of the National Shipbuilding Strategy is that if warships can be built like commercial ships or indeed, like large non-military metal building projects, they would be a lot cheaper. A big "if".

I do not know if that will turn out to be correct. The only instance I know about is the Iver Huifeldts which were mostly built that way and were cheaper than a traditional warship. The Danish problem is that they oversold their accomplishment by going around the world and telling everyone they have the secret to building warships at half the cost. Research showed that claim to be false so they have little or no credibility left. If they had just claimed a 10-15% improvement, which is probably closer to what they accomplished, they would have had more success.

The Type 31 program calls for the commercial approach to go further than the Danes by not only building the ship at a commercial price but also building the military bits to the same lower costs. A big challenge.

For this exercise, I have assumed that the baseline 117m Leander as described in their brochure can be built for the Type 31 200/210m UPC. In other words, I have assume that Cammell Laird can meet the Type 31 challenge and build at commercial prices. So the comparison between FTI and Leander is not between French and UK traditional warship costings. It is between French traditional warship pricing vs UK commercial pricing. A very different comparison.

BTW, my Super-Leander would be a lot more effective at ASW than your FTI: quieter, better HMS, same towed array, possible ASROC, Merlin helicopter. For AA, it would have at least the same capability to defend itself. Probably better given it has a CIWS in addition to CAMM.

[NickC]

Donald-san apologies if answered before why do you not believe "steel is cheap and air is free" argument.

I take the opposite view based on the Danish Abslon and Iver Huitfeldt class ship designs.

The Iver Huitfeldt 6,600 ton class was $340M per ship, understand the basic hull was built in eastern European shipyard and some of the equipment was donated from previous ships using the Stanflex modules, but result a first class AAW frigate/destroyer and passed FOST trials, with outstanding results, as with full ship shock trials with underwater explosions.

Good point.

Firstly, I doubt the Iver Huitfeldt's cost, if built in UK. Those ship has very different design policy.
- Hull production and armament installation are completely separated.
- Danish navy is doing the systems integration by their own. RN will never.
- Getting a APAR-level mini-AEGIS AAW escort with that cheap cost must be a great success. But even though many navies have inspected the ship, none buy it. So, surely there are issues/drawbacks.

Secondly, FOST and FSST is exactly what it means, and not qualifying the ship itself.
- FOST is for every ship. Not only escorts, but Tide class oilers and River class OPV also passes (or fails) FOST. I understand it is more a crew and equipment readiness drill, "can you/the ship do what you are expected to do?". And "what is expected" differs ship-by-ship.
- FSST is shock test. Not only escorts, but also American LPD and LCS go though it. Iver Huitfeldt has a special feature, "merchant-ship based equipments mounted on shock-reduced island". It may be working well, good. Can anyone show what shock level Iver Huitfeldt has experienced in the FSST?

In short, I do not know why Iver Huitfeldt's was so cheap for Danish navy. Also the "actual cost" is said to be NOT as cheap as Danish claims. Many rumors are there. In other words, I am not convinced it is cheap, if built in UK.

On the other hand, "steel is cheap and air is free" argument is of course true, but in 99% of the cases, they fail to achieve it. True but fail. For example, see T31e. It was enlarge a lot from the original Khareef, from 2700t FLD to 3700t FLD. But, it's cost is not much different from typical heavy corvette. I think Leander is a "steel is cheap and air is free" based ship, and its fighting capability shall be the same to Khareef.

But, many here starts to state, "because it is 3700t FLD hull large, it is too much underarmed, we shall add A and B, and more". Typical proposals which is the enemy of "steel is cheap and air is free" argument.

Donald-san apologies if answered before why do you not believe "steel is cheap and air is free" argument.

I take the opposite view based on the Danish Abslon and Iver Huitfeldt class ship designs.

The Iver Huitfeldt 6,600 ton class was $340M per ship, understand the basic hull was built in eastern European shipyard and some of the equipment was donated from previous ships using the Stanflex modules, but result a first class AAW frigate/destroyer and passed FOST trials, with outstanding results, as with full ship shock trials with underwater explosions.

Good point.

Firstly, I doubt the Iver Huitfeldt's cost, if built in UK. Those ship has very different design policy.
- Hull production and armament installation are completely separated.
- Danish navy is doing the systems integration by their own. RN will never.
- Getting a APAR-level mini-AEGIS AAW escort with that cheap cost must be a great success. But even though many navies have inspected the ship, none buy it. So, surely there are issues/drawbacks.

Secondly, FOST and FSST is exactly what it means, and not qualifying the ship itself.
- FOST is for every ship. Not only escorts, but Tide class oilers and River class OPV also passes (or fails) FOST. I understand it is more a crew and equipment readiness drill, "can you/the ship do what you are expected to do?". And "what is expected" differs ship-by-ship.
- FSST is shock test. Not only escorts, but also American LPD and LCS go though it. Iver Huitfeldt has a special feature, "merchant-ship based equipments mounted on shock-reduced island". It may be working well, good. Can anyone show what shock level Iver Huitfeldt has experienced in the FSST?

In short, I do not know why Iver Huitfeldt's was so cheap for Danish navy. Also the "actual cost" is said to be NOT as cheap as Danish claims. Many rumors are there. In other words, I am not convinced it is cheap, if built in UK.

On the other hand, "steel is cheap and air is free" argument is of course true, but in 99% of the cases, they fail to achieve it. True but fail. For example, see T31e. It was enlarge a lot from the original Khareef, from 2700t FLD to 3700t FLD. But, it's cost is not much different from typical heavy corvette. I think Leander is a "steel is cheap and air is free" based ship, and its fighting capability shall be the same to Khareef.

But, many here starts to state, "because it is 3700t FLD hull large, it is too much underarmed, we shall add A and B, and more". Typical proposals which is the enemy of "steel is cheap and air is free" argument.

Steel is cheap and air is free as exploited with Iver Huitfeldt Class by the Danish Navy

"Cost", if UK shipyards want to be competitive they must come with in striking distance for IH build costs using modern production technology and management to push costs down.

"Hull production and armament installation are completely separated" - Consider a very big design success story for the Danish Navy with their development of the 'Stanflex' modules for weapons and systems developed over many years, USN tried to emulate with their Mission Modules for the LCS class and failed miserably and now in effect cancelled.

Its a puzzle why "not sold", but could be many reasons, but Babcock "bought" it in preference to their in house design the Arrowhead and the BMT Venator

"NOT as cheap" as claimed - Danish Navy / Treasury consider black propaganda and provided figures.

"Danish Navy carried out the systems integration themselves" to minimise costs - It showcases the ability of the small Danish Navy and their engineering expertise, outstanding.

"FSST"- Shock level built to NATO standard shock protection (STANAG 4142, 4137 and 4549) and nuclear, biological and chemical protection (STANAG 4447) and vital area armour protection (STANAG 4569), assuming same standard as Type 26?

As a plus of steel is cheap and air is free IH flight deck and hanger can accommodate TWO Merlins

My thoughts on Leander even though a 1,000 tons larger than the Khareef its wasted on the large mission bay sized to take 8 x 20' ISO containers plus crane.

[ArmChairCivvy]

"Danish Navy carried out the systems integration themselves" to minimise costs - It showcases the ability of the small Danish Navy and their engineering expertise, outstanding

Once you can do that, then you are able to shop around.

IH flight deck and hanger can accommodate TWO Merlins

Funny that: first they got rid of their Merlins, then built the ships for them??

[Lord Jim]

I thought they sold theirs to us as we needed to increase numbers fast and they then got replacements later on?

[ArmChairCivvy]

they then got replacements later on?

Romeos, not Merlins?

[NickC]

Donald-san a point in your post reminded me that IH class was the first for a surface ship to exploit use the clever design feature of shock protected deck islands enabling use of COTS electronic kit to save big on costs, it saves having to install individual items of custom navy kit that is at sometimes many times the cost of commercial kit due to being specially designed, built and tested to meet NATO shock standards.

Submarines use floating decks, at depth the enormous pressures causes hull to undergo bulk deformation such that it takes up less space and occupies a smaller volume, fixed decks would buckle, floating decks can create creaking noises as the submarine proceeds deeper, unless the deck/hull junctions are properly greased (max submarine life is set by the design limit on number dives).

Newer submarines use 'fully' floating decks, design is optimised to further isolate deck from hull to silence any internal noise being transmitted externally and assume will also mitigate the effects of shock caused by depth charges and underwater mortars, similar design concept as in IH design

[ArmChairCivvy]

to further isolate deck from hull [...] will also mitigate the effects of shock caused by depth charges

The naval connection becomes a bit stretched, but anyway: The same principle is used in Norway as the coastal defence C&C facilities built by the Germans did not factor in thermobaric rounds, so those modern modules (taking up only a fraction of the space originally built) have been suspended by wires... almost, if not quite, floating.

[Lord Jim]

Done some checking, they never had ASW Merlins just the utility variants and the Danish Air Force still has 14. The Navy is replacing its Lynx with Romeos.

[NickC]

Done some checking, they never had ASW Merlins just the utility variants and the Danish Air Force still has 14. The Navy is replacing its Lynx with Romeos.

Steel is cheap and air is free, the Super Lynx made to look small in Absalon hanger sized for the Merlin

[donald_of_tokyo]

Done some checking, they never had ASW Merlins just the utility variants and the Danish Air Force still has 14. The Navy is replacing its Lynx with Romeos.

Steel is cheap and air is free, the Super Lynx made to look small in Absalon hanger sized for the Merlin

Nice photo.
But, I think it is unrelated to "Steel is cheap and air is free" saga. T45, T26 has similar sized hangar. T26 even has a mission bay, which can accommodate 2nd (or even more) Merlins. But, they are not cheap.

[Poiuytrewq]

Here is another picture from inside Absalon.

The difference in dimensions between Lynx/Merlin is clear.

image.jpg

[ArmChairCivvy]

is unrelated to "Steel is cheap and air is free" saga. T45, T26 has similar sized hangar. T26 even has a mission bay, which can accommodate 2nd (or even more) Merlins. But, they are not cheap

Not unrelated as the examples quoted as counter cost 2-3 times as much (can't be bothered with inflation adjustments as the order of magnitude would not be swayed, by any such 'tinkering').

[Ron5]

The steel and air inside those helicopters are freaking expensive.

[donald_of_tokyo]

What I meant is, having larger hangar is NOT related to it being "steel is cheap and air is free" saga.
Some looks cheap, some are expensive.

- For me, the clear example for "steel is cheap and air is free" saga is Bays and Points. I can add Floreal-class, it has a large hangar.
- I doubt if IH frigate is so, because its cost driver is not yet known. If it is because of Danish navy itself (if the navy is paying a lot of man-power cost to make it happen), the same thing cannot happen in any other navy in the world.
- I'm sure T45 and T26 is NOT a good example of "steel is cheap and air is free" saga. Actually, I think T26 WAS BUILT along the saga "Adding mission bay is nothing because steel is cheap and air is free", they say, and completely failed.

[Ron5]

I'm sure T45 and T26 is NOT a good example of "steel is cheap and air is free" saga. Actually, I think T26 WAS BUILT along the saga "Adding mission bay is nothing because steel is cheap and air is free", they say, and completely failed.

Mmmm. So how much did adding the mission bay cost?

[Enigmatically]

Myth #3967:
A mission bay is just steel and air

[Lord Jim]

I'm sure T45 and T26 is NOT a good example of "steel is cheap and air is free" saga. Actually, I think T26 WAS BUILT along the saga "Adding mission bay is nothing because steel is cheap and air is free", they say, and completely failed.

Mmmm. So how much did adding the mission bay cost?

As much as BAe thought it could get away with probably.

[Caribbean]

Mmmm. So how much did adding the mission bay cost?

Well - two years and five River B2's for a start.

[Ron5]

Three really stupid answers. Well done chaps.

[Caribbean]

Three really stupid answers. Well done chaps.

Trash talking again, I see.