Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by cky7 »

Caribbean wrote: In missile terms, it sits much closer to ESSM than RIM-116. In software terms it sits closer to PAAMS than ESSM does to Aegis (70% of the code is said to be identical - presumably the 30% is the missile physics package), so is probably more comparable to a short-range SM2 under Aegis. It's a Local Area Air Defence system, capable of covering other ships within range, handling crossing targets etc. etc.. A point-defence system only protects the ship that it is fired from and is not intended to handle missiles fired at nearby ships. So yes - in that, I'm sorry , but you were incorrect.

As for the numbers, the point has already been made by others that CAMM is a very effective system, to the point where it may well need far fewer missiles than the equivalent ESSM system to achieve a hit. I seem to remember that four (or was it six?) ESSM proved ineffective against a couple of ancient ASMs fired by the Houthis a couple of years ago and that it was the decoy systems and countermeasures that actually worked.

As for the rest of your comment, I felt rant was appropriate. It's fine to be pissed off about stuff, but misleading claims should be avoided - you said that the T31 would only have a "tiny fraction" of the systems that the IH had - ignoring the fact that it will actually be better equipped than the IH itself was at launch (no volume search radar, no satcoms, ESSM - the older point-defence variant, a single 76mm gun). We are years away from commissioning the first one, so I am completely relaxed about the lack of information on ASMs, which come out of a different budget and for which we are currently looking for an interim solution. My only real concern is the hull sonar, which we do not yet know about.

As for my "blind optimism", well, I've been paying attention over the last few weeks and months and there definitely seems to be a change in attitude towards program management within the RN. Hopefully it is not a temporary blip and that it spreads to the other services (the Army to be precise - the RAF seem to know what they want). The penny seems to have finally dropped that it is easier to get what you can for the current budget and then go back for more money in next years budget than it is to renegotiate an existing approved budget.
Ok fair enough on the local area air defence classification. I’m also happy to say that CAMM is impressive and whilst that’s a fair point about ESSM struggling with those houthi ASMs, we don’t know enough about that incident and Exactly how much more capable CAMM would have been in that instance. ESSM is also being upgraded quite a lot and in fairness to the USN its not like them with their massive resources to have something that’s allowed to drop a long way behind the curve even compared to a close friends kit (if indeed CAMM is superior). There’s quite a lot, I hear that makes me think it maybe, but there are also others out there who will tell me ESSM (or a combination as they’re not directly comparable?) is better. Whilst export sales, particularly when against a US product far from proves superiority and taking into account that CAMM has done well on exports, it’s still along way from as successful as ESSM and there are a lot of first rate navy’s who clearly believe in it. So whilst I agree it’s an excellent missile, I do worry about falling into the trap of believing it’s sk good you need dramatically fewer. Even if it were, reducing the number carried cancels the advantage it provides as the ship only then has the same level of safety relatively. Surely it’s better to play it safe and take more than you need? Even if it had a 1 for 1 success rate there are a lot of opponents able to fire enough ASMs to exhaust type 31s entire magazine so I really don’t see how it’s capable of going into anything more than low threat environments.

I’d also love for you to be right about the future but don’t see the first bit of actual proof that’s likely to be the case, What happened with the danish ships only proves that the Danes did it right. The rest of the things you mention sound very much like the usual noises one hears from the MOD - rising defence budget, world leading capabilities etc. Everytime in reality we’ve ended up with no improvement or something much less than what was initially talked about. I really can’t think of a single instance of it having gone as you say in the last couple of decades so why should things change now? Have we seen an actual substantial increase in spending? Have we got people in charge who actually care about defence anymore than being able to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public with misleading spin? Sorry but they’re both no’s to me and I can’t see a shred of evidence that any of the improvements will come to fruition without a massive change in priorities which I see no evidence of coming. I’m sure the RN do want all these things and more, I just don’t believe they’ll get them and don’t see accepting type 31 which was started as purely a way for Cameron to say we’ve still got 13 frigates when he would t stump up the cash to give us the number of type 26s (a much more capable ship)we need. All playing ball with the type 31 ‘’light frigate’ hype is doing is letting the Cameron’s of this world think they can still short change the military and get away with it Scott free.

Maybe I’m just cynical and believe me I’d love to have you tell me you told me so and proved utterly wrong. Here’s to hoping you’re right :)

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 »

Nice compilation
from twitter @mpwarwick, see ""
Image

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 »

inch wrote: might have been better rn trying not to have 2 large carriers.......but we could have had a cracking escort and sub fleet
Perhaps the RN could have spent the money on a large escort fleet, and then the RN would have nothing to escort other than American Carriers and would totally tied to American objectives. That is not a Navy worth having.
@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 »

jedibeeftrix wrote:How on earth did they manage to keep the unit cost down to £250m if they have chosen not to reuse the
Because on entry to service these ships will be a little underwhelming. That budget covers the ship, a Thales radar and CMS, and three small guns. That's not very much at all!

I assume Thales are giving their kit away at a steel, just to get a foot in the British market and reap the service rewards later. This is a common strategy. Furthermore all of Sea Ceptors expensive bits are in the software or in the canister which will be supplied from RN stock so not much of that will come from the £250m.

I’m willing to bet the combat systems will cost less than £50m, leaving around £200m to build a big ship with a very basic power plant. The 15,000 tonne polar ship is being built in the UK for less than that, so perhaps Babcock do stand a chance of delivering this.
@LandSharkUK

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Assuming 1 year drumbeat of T31 delivery (*1) from 2024, and 1.5 year drumbeat of T26 delivery from 2025.

*1: From man-power point of view, deliver = hand over is important, not commissioning.

(out = decommission, in = hand over to RN, total = frigate hull number)
=============================================
– 2023 T23_GP-1 out, _______________ :::: total = 12
– 2024 T23_GP-2 out, T31-1 in, _______ :::: total = 12
– 2025 T23_GP-3 out, T31-2 in, T26-1 in :::: total = 13
– 2026 T23_GP-4 out, T31-3 in, _______ :::: total = 13
– 2027 T23_GP-5 out, T31-4 in, T26-2 in :::: total = 14
– 2028 T23ASW-1 out, T31-5 in, T26-3 in :::: total = 15
– 2029 T23ASW-2 out, ______________ :::: total = 14
– 2030 T23ASW-3 out, _______ T26-4 in :::: total = 14
– 2031 T23ASW-4 out, _______ T26-5 in :::: total = 14
– 2032 T23ASW-5 out, ______________ :::: total = 13
– 2033 T23ASW-6 out, _______ T26-6 in :::: total = 13
– 2034 T23ASW-7 out, _______ T26-7 in :::: total = 13
– 2035 T23ASW-8 out, ______________ :::: total = 12
– 2036 ____________________ T26-8 in :::: total = 13
=============================================
Just a proposal. Pure proposal.

Is it possible to delay the build of T31 a little?

- T31-1 in 2024 (as is)
- T31-2 in 2026: to reflect all the lessons learned from hull-1 build. No rework.
- T31-3 in 2028: and then keep 2 year drumbeat.
- T31-4 in 2030:
- T31-5 in 2032:

1: As can be seen, RN-manned frigate number will be 12 (2023-2027, and on 2035) or 13 or 14 (other years). Because solving the man-power shortage of 1400 soul will take time, there is no damage to RN.

2: Slow building of T31 may have some impact on build cost. But, too-hurry build means many labors "imported" from east-Europe or even Asia, while UK shipyards lacks order after the 5 T31. Benefit to UK ship building industry shall be maximized.

For example, Carmell Laird kept its ship building work for 4 years by the RV SD Attenborough and a small ferry, worth ~150M GBP in total = ~40M GBP per year. If CL is involved in T31 build with "30M GBP/yr work" for 10 years (from 2021-2030), it is still only 24% of the total share. And, CL is the LARGEST of the remaining UK ship builders, other than BAE and Babcock. By spreading 1.25B GBP work longer, (~10 years), both Babcock and CL (and FM, and A&P, if needed) can happily survive.

3: (main aim of this proposal) As the production line be kept open until 2032, Babcock can approach to New Zealand to "join" the program, which needs two ANZAC frigate replacements on ~2035.

RNZN dockyard in Devonport NZ, is operated by Babcock (not Babcock UK, but anyway, Babcock). May be some final dressing can be done there, within NZ. By enhancing involvement from the beginning, Babcock may secure orders from RNZN.

Arrowhead 140 design well matches RNZN requirements. Their ANZAC frigates after modernization, is actually an up-armed T31 itself. 7000nm long range, 35 days long endurance, 1x 127mm gun, SeaCeptor with 12(?)x CAMM, 1x 20mm CIWS (no 30mm-class gun), SeaSprite helo, SMART-S Mk.2 3D radar, good data-link kits, ESM with good chaff/flare dispensers and floating radar decoy kits. It even has, Spherion-hull sonar, anti-sub torpedo launcher, and SeaSentor torpedo-defense soft-kill system installed.

South Korea or Germany, French could be a big rival in its replacement program. Therefore, "involvement" is important. Make them feel, they are a team member, and it must be dome "right from the beginning".

Just a proposal...

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 »

From T31 NEWS thread.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:...Chief Executive, Babcock Marine, John Howie was talking about this, in the interview to Defense & Aerospace Report. see ""

1: He admits Arrowhead 140 hull is much bigger than that the requirement needed. (03:00)
Larger hull is in view of future "change" in requirement, not for the current requirement.

2: On export, he says about export vision, not on hull (box), but on other systems (14:05)
We stay away as far as possible from sales projection...For the export market, more often or not, we will be selling design, systems, engineering capabilities. A lot of a people who gonna buy a ship of this size want to build it in their own shipyards, not everyone but most will. ... It was about combat system, propulsion, and all the other systems, that can add to UK cross domestic product".

-------
On item-1, Captain Steve Prest, RN, Type31 Frigate program director also clearly stated that the T31 as is are fully capable to handle the required tasks. Not relying on FFBNW kits. Consistent. But I think it is clear that, Babcock guy is saying that the T31 requirement can be filled with 3500-4000 t frigate, like Leander-design, and claiming "leaving many space vacant on Arrowhead 140 is foolish" is not meaningful. It is more correct to say, "why add such a huge growth margin, which is NOT required?". Yes with future "additional requirements" the margin will be good. But for the current requirements RN thinks, all these vacant space MUST be kept vacant = because it is not needed.

On item-2, yes, as all of you feel, CMS, propulsion, even radar, most of the are NOT from UK prosperity = imported. What is he talking about? I am not blaming he is lying, but I just do not understand what he says. May be, systems integration (in eluding the "detailed design" =a package of procedure, perfect tool kits, and hour-to-hour manufacturing process documentation) is what he wanna sell?

Anyway, this interview and that for Captain Steve Prest, RN, Type31 Frigate program director is worth listening. Lots of information, (although carefully avoiding the detailed equipment lists).
Tempest414 wrote:For me yes a 3000 to 4000 ton ship could have met the brief but if you can get a bigger ship with more space why would you not go for it we all know the NSS is looking the wrong away at exports when it should be looking at building UK ships in UK yards exporting designs is not going to keep UK yards open just the design shops. The fact is if HMG wanted a another world beating UK design it should have set a budget that had the teeth i.e 400 million per ship like the French have but didn't so what we have is a good area defence frigate capable of defending its self and other ships around it anywhere we send it yes it needs more long range punch with say NSM and a HMS and we should push our self's to fit these but to say this ship can't fight can't project is bollocks
Tempest414-san, I have no objection. My point is, Babcock intentionally made the hull larger than needed. So, complaining it has so many vacant space is pointless. It is intended to have many vacant space.

So no need to blame "opportunity lost". Looking at the proposed armaments, it is worth its cost (I think you agree here). It is the opportunity prepared for future money. Nothing is lost. (Actually, I think fuel cost and maintenance cost is lost, but it could be not large).

But, when talking about adding something to T31, it means "new money". So, everything must be considered fleet wide. For ASW, T31 is NOT the only asset deserving "additional kits". How about more P-8 or Merlin? How about ASW-USV? For land attack, the same. Why not 127mm gun on T45? May be pushing SPEAR3 will be more important (good export candidate?). We shall think wider. This is my point.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, when talking about adding something to T31, it means "new money". So, everything must be considered fleet wide. For ASW, T31 is NOT the only asset deserving "additional kits". How about more P-8 or Merlin? How about ASW-USV? For land attack, the same. Why not 127mm gun on T45? May be pushing SPEAR3 will be more important (good export candidate?). We shall think wider. This is my point.
Could RN shelve the controversy by applying a similar approach to the T26 build. Namely, keep the 40mm/57mm setup as proposed but add a generous amount of Mk41 cells, the contents of which can debated later.

How much would it cost to replace the CAMM mushrooms with 16 or 32 Mk41 cells? Not a significant amount. I'm not suggesting TLAM or anything requiring strike length cells but quad packed CAMM and Spear3 would give the T31's a good balance for a GP Frigate and by adding NSM or similar it would certainly provide a credible platform at a price the UK can afford.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

inch wrote:Mmh not sure if people going to agree or even like this but maybe rn escort fleet getting that small and under equipped that maybe in hind sight it might have been better rn trying not to have 2 large carriers or any carriers all and just have gone for very well top notch escorts and subs and not try too do everything , jack of all trades master of none so too speak .I really love the carriers and great for pride and flying the flag and fantastic engineering too all those involved ,but it's been looking at things a massive catastrophe to the rest of the fleet ,at the end of the day we are a small country and can't try to compete with the likes of USA, China India or future big players ,that I'm afraid is in our past folks but we could have had a cracking escort and sub fleet for our needs .too late now I know but this half as arsed attempt at things just not really cutting it in my view ,soz
All we can do is try to hold our weight:

The UK has roughly 20% of the USA's Population and 14% of it's Economy. On current plans we will produce roughly 18% of their Carrier Fleet, 17% of their Cruiser / Destroyer fleet and 16% of their planned frigate fleet.

This classifies Cruisers / Destroyers at 8000 - 12000 short tons and Frigates 3000 - 7999. Again, that QE is (at a stretch) in the same weight of Nimitz / Ford.

Granted, each nation's combatants contribute to the bigger picture in their own ways, but we know Type 45 and Type 26 are / will be welcome additions to a US CBG, and that a carrier fully laden with F35b is different to one with a more diverse range of aircraft.

There's always a shopping list but I think we hold our weight quite well.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote: assume Thales are giving their kit away at a steel, just to get a foot in the British market and reap the service rewards later. This is a common strategy.
Thales is just getting a foot in the British mkt :) ?
Roders96 wrote:The UK has roughly 20% of the USA's Population and 14% of it's Economy. On current plans we will produce roughly 18% of their Carrier Fleet, 17% of their Cruiser / Destroyer fleet and 16% of their planned frigate fleet.
A good way of putting it
- is it, perhaps, that despite of the talk about a balanced force and a full spectrum capability
... we should be , errr, a bit unbalanced (are we, already?) and act as the quarterback; is that the guy who catches the ball and puts the "whole team" back in the game, by placing it in the right place :D HELP me out here; I am not an American ;)
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 »

Roders96 wrote:
inch wrote:Mmh not sure if people going to agree or even like this but maybe rn escort fleet getting that small and under equipped that maybe in hind sight it might have been better rn trying not to have 2 large carriers or any carriers all and just have gone for very well top notch escorts and subs and not try too do everything , jack of all trades master of none so too speak .I really love the carriers and great for pride and flying the flag and fantastic engineering too all those involved ,but it's been looking at things a massive catastrophe to the rest of the fleet ,at the end of the day we are a small country and can't try to compete with the likes of USA, China India or future big players ,that I'm afraid is in our past folks but we could have had a cracking escort and sub fleet for our needs .too late now I know but this half as arsed attempt at things just not really cutting it in my view ,soz
All we can do is try to hold our weight:

The UK has roughly 20% of the USA's Population and 14% of it's Economy. On current plans we will produce roughly 18% of their Carrier Fleet, 17% of their Cruiser / Destroyer fleet and 16% of their planned frigate fleet.

This classifies Cruisers / Destroyers at <a href="tel:8000 - 12000">8000 - 12000</a> short tons and Frigates 3000 - 7999. Again, that QE is (at a stretch) in the same weight of Nimitz / Ford.

Granted, each nation's combatants contribute to the bigger picture in their own ways, but we know Type 45 and Type 26 are / will be welcome additions to a US CBG, and that a carrier fully laden with F35b is different to one with a more diverse range of aircraft.

There's always a shopping list but I think we hold our weight quite well.
It’s a bit miss leading though as we spend a disproportionate amount on our navy compared to the US ( rightly so IMO ) If you look at the army numbers and there equipment as well as the Air Force you’ll find we don’t have a 14% odd make up compared to the US.

If we are to compare figures like this I’d look at it more like this, the US budget is to rise to around $700bn for us to match at the 14% odd figure we’d have to have a budget of around $98bn ( roughly £70bn taking a long term dollar to pound at $1.30 odd ) this is a budget of roughly 3.6% of GDP.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:despite of the talk about a balanced force and a full spectrum capability
... we should be , errr, a bit unbalanced (are we, already?)
ONE way,
Jake1992 wrote:14% odd figure we’d have to have a budget of around $98bn ( roughly £70bn taking a long term dollar to pound at $1.30 odd ) this is a budget of roughly 3.6% of GDP.
and the OTHER way

... which shall it be?
(and don't forget about alliances... even if that pesky Trump is in there, for now :lol: )
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)

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Jake1992 wrote: It’s a bit miss leading though as we spend a disproportionate amount on our navy compared to the US ( rightly so IMO ) If you look at the army numbers and there equipment as well as the Air Force you’ll find we don’t have a 14% odd make up compared to the US.

If we are to compare figures like this I’d look at it more like this, the US budget is to rise to around $700bn for us to match at the 14% odd figure we’d have to have a budget of around $98bn ( roughly £70bn taking a long term dollar to pound at $1.30 odd ) this is a budget of roughly 3.6% of GDP.
Very true, compared to the US we do spend a disproportionately large amount on the Navy, but our geography is also more maritime, our economy less self-sufficient and our nation more casualty-averse. As a maritime trade-dependent island, this balance makes sense, if our allies expect us to spend more on an area of capability, allowing them to spend more on another domain, it would be our Navy.

Numbers never capture the whole story, but they do make trends easier to see. In a similar way we'd expect the German's to have a larger Wehrmacht than the BA.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: ... which shall it be?
(and don't forget about alliances... even if that pesky Trump is in there, for now :lol: )
I'd rather we place more emphasis on the product of our resources than how much we spend in all honesty. It's more complicated and requires more effort, but I think we'd all appreciate a more efficient defence industrial base, as opposed to just throwing money on the bonfire.
Roders96 wrote: The UK has roughly 20% of the USA's population and 14% of its Economy.
It comes back to economics, we aren't as wealthy (per head) as the USA and therefore as a nation, we have less disposable income. Because of this, the burden of what economists call 'autonomous consumption', (in layman's terms necessities) the things we buy no matter what the price, and can't forgo 'on risk' (healthcare, shelter, heating, food, social care for the elderly) is higher, and makes up a relatively higher proportion of our national income and expenditure than the USA.

We don't have the means of the Americans, we shouldn't spend proportionately.
ArmChairCivvy wrote: ... we should be, errr, a bit unbalanced (are we, already?) and act as the quarterback; is that the guy who catches the ball and puts the "whole team" back in the game, by placing it in the right place :D HELP me out here; I am not an American ;)
There's also an argument that within the western alliance we're either Number 2 or 3 in the pecking order, if there was a member outside of the USA which was to provide the big-ticket naval capabilities, it would be us. Letting nations like Australia, Canada, NZ bring the naval quarterbacks. Other's the rest.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Roders96 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: It’s a bit miss leading though as we spend a disproportionate amount on our navy compared to the US ( rightly so IMO ) If you look at the army numbers and there equipment as well as the Air Force you’ll find we don’t have a 14% odd make up compared to the US.

If we are to compare figures like this I’d look at it more like this, the US budget is to rise to around $700bn for us to match at the 14% odd figure we’d have to have a budget of around $98bn ( roughly £70bn taking a long term dollar to pound at $1.30 odd ) this is a budget of roughly 3.6% of GDP.
Very true, compared to the US we do spend a disproportionately large amount on the Navy, but our geography is also more maritime, our economy less self-sufficient and our nation more casualty-averse. As a maritime trade-dependent island, this balance makes sense, if our allies expect us to spend more on an area of capability, allowing them to spend more on another domain, it would be our Navy.

Numbers never capture the whole story, but they do make trends easier to see. In a similar way we'd expect the German's to have a larger Wehrmacht than the BA.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: ... which shall it be?
(and don't forget about alliances... even if that pesky Trump is in there, for now :lol: )
I'd rather we place more emphasis on the product of our resources than how much we spend in all honesty. It's more complicated and requires more effort, but I think we'd all appreciate a more efficient defence industrial base, as opposed to just throwing money on the bonfire.
Roders96 wrote: The UK has roughly 20% of the USA's population and 14% of its Economy.
It comes back to economics, we aren't as wealthy (per head) as the USA and therefore as a nation, we have less disposable income. Because of this, the burden of what economists call 'autonomous consumption', (in layman's terms necessities) the things we buy no matter what the price, and can't forgo 'on risk' (healthcare, shelter, heating, food, social care for the elderly) is higher, and makes up a relatively higher proportion of our national income and expenditure than the USA.

We don't have the means of the Americans, we shouldn't spend proportionately.
ArmChairCivvy wrote: ... we should be , errr, a bit unbalanced (are we, already?) and act as the quarterback; is that the guy who catches the ball and puts the "whole team" back in the game, by placing it in the right place :D HELP me out here; I am not an American ;)
There's also an argument that within the western alliance we're either Number 2 or 3 in the pecking order, if there were members outside of the USA which were to provide the big ticket naval capabilities, it would be us. Letting nations like Australia, Canada, NZ bring the quarterbacks.
I agree it is right that as an island nation we should spend a great proportion of defence of the navy in comparison to others. I was merely trying to point out that comparing the percentage of naval assets we have in the relation to the corresponding US assets in away to make out we’re doing better than though is a bit of a misnomer due to what they get in other areas.

I also agree for us as a nation 3.6% to try an match the US in terms of GDP spend is asking too much, but a minimum of 2.5% with an aim of heading towards 3% should be reasonable.

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

With Saudi being "surprise hit" by undetected drones is the choice of bofors weapons fit a stroke of genius?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

shark bait wrote:
jedibeeftrix wrote:How on earth did they manage to keep the unit cost down to £250m if they have chosen not to reuse the
Because on entry to service these ships will be a little underwhelming. That budget covers the ship, a Thales radar and CMS, and three small guns. That's not very much at all!

I assume Thales are giving their kit away at a steel, just to get a foot in the British market and reap the service rewards later. This is a common strategy. Furthermore all of Sea Ceptors expensive bits are in the software or in the canister which will be supplied from RN stock so not much of that will come from the £250m.

I’m willing to bet the combat systems will cost less than £50m, leaving around £200m to build a big ship with a very basic power plant. The 15,000 tonne polar ship is being built in the UK for less than that, so perhaps Babcock do stand a chance of delivering this.
That’s exactly my thinking. Thales will be taking a “loss leader” approach to the radar and CMS to get a foot in the door, CAAM is transferred from 23. I bet CL end up doing much of the fabrication and Babcock keep on a few of the east Europeans they had working on POW. So the ask is basically for CL/Babcock to deliver a big steel box for about the same cost CL delivered the RSS Attenborough. Seems doable

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 »

SD67 wrote:CL/Babcock
It will be interesting to see if they contract out to CL. The program director said the bid they submitted was for 100% of the build at Rosyth, and once the contract was signed they would evaluate the business case for out sourcing some of the work.

I think this means is they will get a quote from some companies, realise its cheaper to keep in house, then carry on as planned at Rosyth.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:
SD67 wrote:CL/Babcock
It will be interesting to see if they contract out to CL. The program director said the bid they submitted was for 100% of the build at Rosyth, and once the contract was signed they would evaluate the business case for out sourcing some of the work.

I think this means is they will get a quote from some companies, realise its cheaper to keep in house, then carry on as planned at Rosyth.
It will be cheapest and most efficient to build the T31's entirely at Rosyth. CL and possibly H&W can concentrate on the FSS/FLSS before moving on to the Point class replacements in the mid to late 2020's, therefore keeping a steady drumbeat until the Amphibs are replaced in the 2030's.

Plenty of work for UK yards if HMG doesn't send it abroad.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

shark bait wrote:
SD67 wrote:CL/Babcock
It will be interesting to see if they contract out to CL. The program director said the bid they submitted was for 100% of the build at Rosyth, and once the contract was signed they would evaluate the business case for out sourcing some of the work.

I think this means is they will get a quote from some companies, realise its cheaper to keep in house, then carry on as planned at Rosyth.
Maybe true, but other issue is the delivery timescales. Out sourcing some of the blocks may help to mitigate risks in meeting delivery deadlines. If the increased cost from out sourcing are not too big, they could be worth paying to reduce the risk of missing deadlines.

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Clive F »

Bets on T31 class name anounced at conservative conference? Something very British like Royal oak, Britannia etc

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Simple me would like an adjectival “F-class” D class destroyers, F class Frigates
Fearless
Foresight
Fury
etc

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

How about the "Battle" Class ? :idea:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

HMS Fluffy
HMS Fearful
HMS Floppy
HMS Fake
HMS Flee

I know, not very helpful.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Problem is most of the best battles were against our current allies...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

So, in order not to offend anyone, presumably you probably also think that we should also rename Waterloo Station. If people (either at home or abroad) are so sensitive, then they deserve (and need) to be offended, iif only in order to grow up. :mrgreen:

Blackstone
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Blackstone »

Scimitar54 wrote:How about the "Battle" Class ? :idea:
Given how often they've mentioned 3 centerline turrets "bringing back the broadside." They should just call them the Broadside class. Or maybe just name them all after types of naval guns.

Post Reply