Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

Ron5-san, thanks. I understand almost all of your point
Only some comments:

It is clear British ship building industry is inefficient, so "comparable to" is a big challenge.

Cammell Laird does not agree with you.

I'm sorry but they will. After SV SD Attenborough, they start cutting their labour force, even though they won two big bids, T45 diesel-gen mod and RFA support. If they think they are competitive, they must rather increase the labor force (say, propose the labor of Appledore and Rothys to join). After the 5MGBP cheap Isle of White ferry, I understand they have nothing more to build?

Throw away the NSS which isn't a strategy but merely a thinly veiled excuse for building cheap frigates. In particular, throw away the absurd idea that there is enough warship building capacity in the UK to sustain meaningful competition.
Develop a proper long term strategy around creating and investing in single site surface warship shipbuilding. Just like the massive investment made at Barrow in order to produce excellent submarines at excellent prices. Enable a world class efficient frigate factory. Create a long term build plan, commit to it and invest and make orders accordingly i.e. if 8 T26 are to be acquired, order 8 so that the shipyard & Treasury can invest in creating modern infrastructure.

Agreed With 1.5B GBP prepared for T31e, Clyde can build 2 more T26. With efficiency improvements (including Frigate Factory), MOD will still have ~200M GBP for anything other.

#My personal favorite is 1 more T26 and 3-4 more Floreal-like, but its small difference. (*1)

By all means open up international competition for RFA and other non-complex warships that commercial yards can reasonable be expected to successfully build. But add value to any UK bids commensurate with the taxes the shipbuilders & workers will pay back to the Treasury and add value for the social benefits of maintaining employment in the UK. Develop a black list of countries who will not be invited to bid. Start the black list with Russia, China and North Korea. Add Germany, Spain & France based on their actions toward the UK. Then decide a winner.

Other than adding Germany and France, I agree to your point (focus your "enemy"). But this also means, CL, H&W, A&P and Babcock can only expect UK MOD order if they cannot win export orders (with not TAX-refund calculation etc.).

.. Industry can only base their investments on signed and sealed orders not subject to capricious delays and cancellation. Who doesn't believe that one or more of the carriers would have been cancelled if they had not been tied up with bullet proof contracts?

Disagree here. Investing only AFTER getting firm order, means not competitive. All industries are investing at their own risk, and only with those investments, they win the bid. See what Apple computer, Toyota, BMW, Runault/Nissan, or even a Burger king is doing. They don't build their shops AFTER they got their order.

But, to do that, they need good "foresight" = be competitive enough. With current HMG attitude of "not adding TAX-refund" value to UK bid, it is clear the UK ship building industry is NOT investing on their own. Actually, they are clearly retreating (Appledore, Carmell Laird, Rothys). My proposal (based on yours) will be, change the policy to include TAX-refund (of course also for international contenders = fair ), and see how those shipyards (re-)start investments.


*1: For me, CL, Babcock, and H&W are much better at building OPV-standard and civilian-standard hulls. So, if T31e project task is "job generation", MOD must order a ship like Floreal-class. Skills to build frigate-standard hull is totally impossible to support for long by MOD = waste of money. Building "OPV-standard and civilian-standard hulls" cheap and "to build frigate-standard hull" are different skills.

Damen 10514 "light frigate" is based on OPV-standard hull. In other words, this is the standard in export market. So, this strategy is also good for export. Not making Leander in Frigate standard, but in OPV-standard, with modest armaments (no CAMM but Mk.8 gun and 1 or 2 CIWS, for example) and cheaper cost. Three Al Khareef corvettes were built with 400M GBP in UK only 10 years ago. Of course now we may need 600-800M GBP (including all the initial cost), but this also means, RN can get "one full-fat T26ASW" and "3 OPV-standard Sloop" as Floreal-like.

[ArmChairCivvy]

as the RSS has shown with it's DNV Silent-R rating, COTS) technology

That is quite an achievement as in ice-breaking ships there are extra demands on propellers' shape (the breaking being as much by getting the bow on top of the ice as slicing through the ice).
- or is the rating (measurement) for internally generated noise only?

[Tempest414]

Agreed With 1.5B GBP prepared for T31e, Clyde can build 2 more T26. With efficiency improvements (including Frigate Factory), MOD will still have ~200M GBP for anything other.

I think if HMG were to go all in with T-26 now and add the 1.5 billion for T-31 and ordered all remaining ships plus let the brake off we might get 11 T-26. AS BAE said if we ordered 8 we could get the 9th

[shark bait]

add the 1.5 billion for T-31 and ordered all remaining ships plus let the brake off we might get 11 T-26.

In the mid 30's maybe, in the mean time the RN will loose 5 ships, so the above is a none starter.

With regard to the URN signature, I think that we tend to overlook the fact that what was cutting-edge hull and machinery design twenty years ago, is now pretty much standard MOTs

True, which I think has largely been driven by the oil and gas industry who are fielding increasingly high fidelity sensors that require better propulsion for their exploration.

If the RN skip a modern propulsion system they really are shortsighted, its cheaper to run, its nicer to live on, its supported by civilian industry, and opens up the possibility of sub hunting in a later batch.

Only one entry offers this...

[Tempest414]

In the mid 30's maybe, in the mean time the RN will loose 5 ships, so the above is a none starter.

I agree I am just saying that if they went all in should be able to get 11 ships not 10

For me I think we really need the T-31s right now to fill the hole left by messing about over getting T-26 started

[donald_of_tokyo]

add the 1.5 billion for T-31 and ordered all remaining ships plus let the brake off we might get 11 T-26.

In the mid 30's maybe, in the mean time the RN will loose 5 ships, so the above is a none starter.

Now RN only operates 17 escorts. Even when RN decommission one T23GP on 2023 and second on 2024, RN loses no active escorts, but just two escorts in extended readiness.

On 2025, T26 hull-1 needs her crew, followed by T26-hull2 around 2026-27. So, if slightly increasing the building pace of T26 can take effect after 2027-28, it can happen without any impact on RN active escort numbers, I think.

On the other hand, my proposal for 3-4 Floreal-like with 9th T26 has no big impact on escort+sloop number, as well.

[Poiuytrewq]

If the RN skip a modern propulsion system they really are shortsighted, its cheaper to run, its nicer to live on, its supported by civilian industry, and opens up the possibility of sub hunting in a later batch.

Agreed.

Only one entry offers this...

To be fair we really don't know much about the Meko offering.

The CODAG WARP setup does look interesting but not especially quiet?

1-Manoeuvre Mode : Both diesel engines are connected to the propellers. The maximum ship speed in this mode is approximately 23 knots
2-Economic Mode : used for long-distance cruising. Only one diesel engine is connected to both propellers. The maximum ship speed in this mode is approximately 18 knots
3-Gas Turbine Mode : only the gas turbine and the waterjet. The maximum ship speed in this mode is approximately 23 knots
4-CODAG-WARP Mode : the two diesel driven propeller shafts and the gas turbine driven waterjet give ship’s a top speed of 28 knots

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

[Ron5]

Ron5-san, thanks. I understand almost all of your point
Only some comments:

It is clear British ship building industry is inefficient, so "comparable to" is a big challenge.

Cammell Laird does not agree with you.

I'm sorry but they will. After SV SD Attenborough, they start cutting their labour force, even though they won two big bids, T45 diesel-gen mod and RFA support. If they think they are competitive, they must rather increase the labor force (say, propose the labor of Appledore and Rothys to join). After the 5MGBP cheap Isle of White ferry, I understand they have nothing more to build?

Throw away the NSS which isn't a strategy but merely a thinly veiled excuse for building cheap frigates. In particular, throw away the absurd idea that there is enough warship building capacity in the UK to sustain meaningful competition.
Develop a proper long term strategy around creating and investing in single site surface warship shipbuilding. Just like the massive investment made at Barrow in order to produce excellent submarines at excellent prices. Enable a world class efficient frigate factory. Create a long term build plan, commit to it and invest and make orders accordingly i.e. if 8 T26 are to be acquired, order 8 so that the shipyard & Treasury can invest in creating modern infrastructure.

Agreed With 1.5B GBP prepared for T31e, Clyde can build 2 more T26. With efficiency improvements (including Frigate Factory), MOD will still have ~200M GBP for anything other.

#My personal favorite is 1 more T26 and 3-4 more Floreal-like, but its small difference. (*1)

By all means open up international competition for RFA and other non-complex warships that commercial yards can reasonable be expected to successfully build. But add value to any UK bids commensurate with the taxes the shipbuilders & workers will pay back to the Treasury and add value for the social benefits of maintaining employment in the UK. Develop a black list of countries who will not be invited to bid. Start the black list with Russia, China and North Korea. Add Germany, Spain & France based on their actions toward the UK. Then decide a winner.

Other than adding Germany and France, I agree to your point (focus your "enemy"). But this also means, CL, H&W, A&P and Babcock can only expect UK MOD order if they cannot win export orders (with not TAX-refund calculation etc.).

.. Industry can only base their investments on signed and sealed orders not subject to capricious delays and cancellation. Who doesn't believe that one or more of the carriers would have been cancelled if they had not been tied up with bullet proof contracts?

Disagree here. Investing only AFTER getting firm order, means not competitive. All industries are investing at their own risk, and only with those investments, they win the bid. See what Apple computer, Toyota, BMW, Runault/Nissan, or even a Burger king is doing. They don't build their shops AFTER they got their order.

But, to do that, they need good "foresight" = be competitive enough. With current HMG attitude of "not adding TAX-refund" value to UK bid, it is clear the UK ship building industry is NOT investing on their own. Actually, they are clearly retreating (Appledore, Carmell Laird, Rothys). My proposal (based on yours) will be, change the policy to include TAX-refund (of course also for international contenders = fair ), and see how those shipyards (re-)start investments.


*1: For me, CL, Babcock, and H&W are much better at building OPV-standard and civilian-standard hulls. So, if T31e project task is "job generation", MOD must order a ship like Floreal-class. Skills to build frigate-standard hull is totally impossible to support for long by MOD = waste of money. Building "OPV-standard and civilian-standard hulls" cheap and "to build frigate-standard hull" are different skills.

Damen 10514 "light frigate" is based on OPV-standard hull. In other words, this is the standard in export market. So, this strategy is also good for export. Not making Leander in Frigate standard, but in OPV-standard, with modest armaments (no CAMM but Mk.8 gun and 1 or 2 CIWS, for example) and cheaper cost. Three Al Khareef corvettes were built with 400M GBP in UK only 10 years ago. Of course now we may need 600-800M GBP (including all the initial cost), but this also means, RN can get "one full-fat T26ASW" and "3 OPV-standard Sloop" as Floreal-like.

To clarify a couple of points:

1. I did not advocate cancelling the Type 31. I said cancel the NSS. Two different things. If the RN desires a cheaper level 2 frigate for whatever reasons, then so be it. My proposal is that the MoD would take the T31 budget to the single frigate/destroyer yard, and request/negotiate a solution. Just like they would if they wanted a new class of submarine, they would take that requirement to Barrow.

2. Lack of orders at CL does not mean that are not competitive. OTH, winning the SDA bid, does indicate that. And so will building a Leander for <200m (type 31 budget minus design & support) if they win the contract.

3. Building ships is not in the least like selling hamburgers. How would CL or Babcocks explain to their shareholders, why they spent millions on creating Type 31 build facilities after they lose the contract? The entire management team would be fired.

[Lord Jim]

The idea of creating centres of excellence for different types of naval vessel, like Barrow for submarines, is looking like the only way ahead. I fully agree that trying to use the market grow our ship building capacity, as proposed under the NSS is fantasy. The NSS should be scrapped, and the relevant yards identified for which types of vessels. This would allow them to have some confidence to begin to make investments in their facilities. To support this though, the Government will need to bring all naval ship building back to the UK, classing all vessels as warships/complicated platforms. Yes there are rules that currently dictate what must be competed but these are not set in stone and other countries seem to be able to work around them with little difficulty.

[Lord Jim]

Just out of interest, is there a reason we haven't tried to fit a Phalanx on top of the Hanger on the T-23 now that Sea Wolf has been replaced?

[seaspear]

The type 45 has been stated to be a carrier escort due to high capabilities in aaw ,now there is a direction that the type 31 will free up the type 45 from this role to other not so defined roles including nuclear deterrent ,this may mean a future role carrying upgraded anti ballistic missiles but thats speculation ,but I haven't seen anything in the capabilities of the type 31 for aaw to suggest it could be used as a carrier escort instead of the type 45 , certainly to equip it as such with similar sensors and other weaponry would blow its budget out of the water

[serge750]

Well if the QE went to sea without a T45 escort I think that would be crazy ! Perhaps if they had a couple of T31 with an extended load of CAMM maybe in really low threat/peace time or maybe as part of a NATO task group with other nations AAW ships eg French horizon, usa AB or Oz Hobart etc...having said that they only had a T23 for westlant 18...…..

[Aethulwulf]

Well if the QE went to sea without a T45 escort I think that would be crazy ! Perhaps if they had a couple of T31 with an extended load of CAMM maybe in really low threat/peace time or maybe as part of a NATO task group with other nations AAW ships eg French horizon, usa AB or Oz Hobart etc...having said that they only had a T23 for westlant 18...…..

Despite what many might believe, the east coast of the USA is not hostile water for the RN. The likelihood of coming under air attack during Westlant 18 was as close to nil as it is possible to get.

[shark bait]

The CODAG WARP setup does look interesting but not especially quiet?

It's likely to perform better than a direct drive diesel, gas turbines need to be perfectly balanced and tend to emit higher frequencies which don't transfer so well through water.

Wont be as good as a diesel electric hybrid where the noisy bits can be totally isolated from the hull.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The CODAG WARP setup does look interesting but not especially quiet?

It's likely to perform better than a diesel, gas turbines need to be perfectly balanced and tend to emit higher frequencies which don't transfer so well through water.

But I’m afraid it is not easy to tow sonars from its stern? At least, everything will be “black” with dusts.

[shark bait]

But I’m afraid it is not easy to tow sonars from its stern? At least, everything will be “black” with dusts.

Correct, that rear exhaust does not look like it was designed with towing a sonar in mind. CODAG WARP looks like a nice idea, it removes complexity be separating the GT and Diesel drive trains, but a traditional exhaust may be preferable.

[shark bait]

The idea of creating centres of excellence for different types of naval vessel, like Barrow for submarines, is looking like the only way ahead

You mean like the process that lead to BAE's TOBA?

[Aethulwulf]

I would be very surprised if the Meko A200 variant offered for the T31 retains any form of waterjet propulsion. In fact, even retaining a Gas Turbine would be an eye opener.

Given the T31's need to keep things simple, I would expect that the RN would be happy to accept a limit of 23 kt top speed using two diesel engines.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I would be very surprised if the Meko A200 variant offered for the T31 retains any form of waterjet propulsion

I take it that you take an affordability rather than benefits approach (in saying that)? Whole-of-life cost calculation might be surprising - and the benefits for upgrade-ability to an ASW role less so:

"MEKO A-200 features the revolutionary CODAG-WARP (Water jet and Refined Propellers) propulsion system: two CPP (Controllable Pitch Propeller) propeller shafts driven by cross-connectable diesel engines plus a centre-line gas turbine-driven water jet, combining the power of each drive in the water without the need of a combining gearbox. This arrangement allows for extremely quiet acoustic signatures, a high degree of propulsion redundancy and damage survivability. The propulsion arrangement also provides, in the diesel only mode, an extremely economic solution, whereby a single engine can drive both shafts for a ship speed of 18 knots/20.7 mph/33.3 km/h, meaning that the ship will spend most of its life on a single engine"

[Lord Jim]

You mean like the process that lead to BAE's TOBA?

Pardon my ignorance but could you explain what TOBA is please.

[shark bait]

Terms of business arrangement. It was an agreement between the government and BAE to rationalise ship building at a single location and guarantee income so BAE has the confidence to invest in facilities.

But the government failed to hold up their end of the deal, thus the batch 2 River Class.

[NickC]

But I’m afraid it is not easy to tow sonars from its stern? At least, everything will be “black” with dusts.

Correct, that rear exhaust does not look like it was designed with towing a sonar in mind. CODAG WARP looks like a nice idea, it removes complexity be separating the GT and Diesel drive trains, but a traditional exhaust may be preferable.

Both Austal with the Independence and LM with Freedom versions for the USN FFG(X) competition have abandoned water jet propulsion of their LCS class ships and changed to propellers.

Both have new propulsion plants, it appears Austal have chosen to go all diesel and LM were looking at either diesel + GT or all diesel, will be of interest if full details of their final designs revealed.

FFG(X) spec calls for AN/SQS/DART VDS or a Low Band Hull Array (presuming a HMS) and a TB-37 MFTA, multi-function towed array.

[Aethulwulf]

I would be very surprised if the Meko A200 variant offered for the T31 retains any form of waterjet propulsion

I take it that you take an affordability rather than benefits approach (in saying that)? Whole-of-life cost calculation might be surprising - and the benefits for upgrade-ability to an ASW role less so:

"MEKO A-200 features the revolutionary CODAG-WARP (Water jet and Refined Propellers) propulsion system: two CPP (Controllable Pitch Propeller) propeller shafts driven by cross-connectable diesel engines plus a centre-line gas turbine-driven water jet, combining the power of each drive in the water without the need of a combining gearbox. This arrangement allows for extremely quiet acoustic signatures, a high degree of propulsion redundancy and damage survivability. The propulsion arrangement also provides, in the diesel only mode, an extremely economic solution, whereby a single engine can drive both shafts for a ship speed of 18 knots/20.7 mph/33.3 km/h, meaning that the ship will spend most of its life on a single engine"

The waterjet and GT are used for speeds of 23 kt and above. No ship is going to be very quiet travelling through the water at those speeds. I can't see any benefit of the waterjet / GT for ASW.

Whereas, two propeller shafts driven by cross-connectable diesel engines whereby a single engine can drive both shafts for a ship speed of 18 kt has lots of potential advantages.

[shark bait]

have abandoned water jet propulsion of their LCS class ships and changed to propellers.

Non of the littoral combat ships apply CODAG WARP propulsion. They only use water jet's which are inefficient at anything other than full speed.

Meko's CODAG WARP on the other hand has both jets and props to give good efficiency at high and low speeds respective.

[Pongoglo]

Just out of interest, is there a reason we haven't tried to fit a Phalanx on top of the Hanger on the T-23 now that Sea Wolf has been replaced?

£££££££ !