Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

i would agree so far

FREMM = 20 orders across 4 Navies ( however 2 of those navies only have 1 ship each )
F-100 = 13 orders across 3 Navies
Iver Huitifeldt/ A140 = 8 orders across 2 Navies
Type 26 = 32 orders across 3 Navies

So A-140 is doing ok it could still pick up some more orders yet i.e 2 for Indonesia and so on

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Repulse wrote:The only thing for me with the T31 choice is that if you can build a Iver Huitfeldt Mk2 you can build a Absalon Mk2, and that is where the RN (+RM) does have a need.
I've wondered for a while if the LSS should be based on enlarged absalon designs.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:What is also important to note is, however, to look into the escorts Naval group in French, Navantia in Spain, and Fincantierri in Italy designed and built AFTER the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate was built.

Apparently, they do not follow the cost reduction of Danish Danes, and still they are competitive in export market.
Lets look at a couple of these exports, the French FREMM was the ex-Normandie for Egypt, financed by a soft loan which took if off the French defence budget which was overspent, if the Egypt have one of their periodic financial 'episodes' the French taxpayer will be paying, the Spanish Navantia three F100/Hobart class for Australia, went way over budget and Wiki quotes a mouth watering A$9.1 billion ~£7 billion / £2.3 billion per ship!
donald_of_tokyo wrote: Note that Naval is "stealing" good design of Dutch Damen, and Navantia also shows concepts "learnt (or stolen)" from other ship yards. They are very eager to "learn" and make themselves competitive. Innovation is naturally shared (or learned or stolen), but here there was no learning yet.

This clearly (at least for me) means, Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate design is lacking "something", on which all this top-tier ship builders ignored to "learn". It is not clear yet, though.
" Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate design is lacking "something""- Can you provide ANY justification for this comment, to me pure hokum.

IH designed by OMT based on their wealth of experience and expertise gained in ship designs dating from 1946 and best known for their Maersk container ships, one of the leading world shipping companies. OMT designed IH to full NATO warship standards, aced the RN FOST trials and explosive shock trials.

If you compare IH at a third of a billion to the T45 at a cost £1 billion, mainly driven by the R&D and cost of the WR21s?, a failed very expensive attempt to bring diesel SFC to the GT throughout its speed range, WR21 has a long history of breakdowns and continuing drain on RN budgets for maintenance and updates. No where does OMT expertise show up more than in the IH crew less than half that of the T45 which results in one T45 permanently moored pier side, IH diesels give it its long range of 9,000nm+ and expect IH has at least twice the operational sea days per year of a T45. IH has more firepower than a T45 with its 32 Mk 41 VLS cells for SM-2s, 24 Mk 56 VLS cells for ESSMs and 16 deck launchers for Harpoon verse 48 Sylver VLS cells for Aster 15/30s plus 8 deck launchers for Harpoon, T45 has space for more VLS cells but no funding.

IH compared to FREMM, the main difference IH is a single function AAW ship, FREMM is multi function frigate which makes it an expensive ship besides the design choice of using GT eg the 3,600 rpm GT requires an expensive 130t combining SSS main reduction gearbox plus its DGs and electric machines whereas IH uses two simple combining gearboxes for its MDEs and separate DGs. To make IH a quiet ship for ASW would cost.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:i would agree so far

FREMM = 20
F-100 = 13
Iver Huitifeldt/ A140 = 8
...
Type 26 = 32
Why I put the [...] into the quote is that that is where the shift is to the next-gen. And as opposed to
NickC wrote:mainly driven by the R&D and cost of the WR21s?
the T45s became expensive because of the radar & BM solution , though a lot of the cost for that had also/ already been shared

Finessing the likely costs:
NickC wrote:the French FREMM was the ex-Normandie for Egypt, financed by a soft loan which took if off the French defence budget which was overspent, if the Egypt have one of their periodic financial 'episodes' the French taxpayer will be paying, the Spanish Navantia three F100/Hobart class for Australia, went way over budget and Wiki quotes a mouth watering A$9.1 billion ~£7 billion / £2.3 billion per ship!
and even allowing for those outlier (cost) cases,
NickC wrote: pure hokum
is what prevails in this sphere, as the real truth only comes up 10, or more years, later
- the first mention of the T45 power problems was by NAO ... about 20 years ago; but they are not allowed to copy-paste the project level details, as supporting evidence, to their reports anymore. Another example of that was why the Tornados (IFF) were either grounded or sidelined both in the Gulf and in the Balkans. Glaring oversights in one way or the other MUST NOT be seen by the public, who foot the bills
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 »

NickC wrote:" Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate design is lacking "something""- Can you provide ANY justification for this comment, to me pure hokum.
Completely agree. Just because most naval shipbuilding markets are rigged as hell doesn't mean the Danish didn't succeed in producing something efficiently.

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 »

Roders96 wrote:
NickC wrote:" Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate design is lacking "something""- Can you provide ANY justification for this comment, to me pure hokum.
Completely agree. Just because most naval shipbuilding markets are rigged as hell doesn't mean the Danish didn't succeed in producing something efficiently.
Misunderstanding here is.

Actually, I have no objection to most of your comments. Danes was/is as efficient as other top-tier shipyards.

My point is, Danes was/is NOT twice more efficient than other top-tier shipyards.

Technology is merciless. If one product is cheaper than other product with similar capability, it means;
1: technological break-though enabled much more efficient building
2: money input other than purchase contract exists (state subsidiary (*1), damping etc... )

I am talking about item-1.

If you look at any technological history, any efficient technology, if it is as significant as making it TWICE better, is introduced, stolen, copied and anyway utilized by the rival companies within several years.

See Netherlands Damen and French Naval. Their corvette building "innovation" (integrated mast including CIC, tested and verified even before the block welded with the main hull) is now common. Block building, super-block building (installing most of the kits before welding the hull), etc. are utilized in all these shipyards = this is clearly an efficient technology.

I think Danish Danes shipyards was/is as efficient as other top-tier ship yards. And, as T31 "looks like" only half a cost of other similar-sized escorts, there are clear reasons there = T31 lacks something compared to other escorts which are as twice as expensive than T31 (FTI, F100, etc). What is it? This is my SOLE point.

This is just a logical thinking, and far from "pure hokum".

And I also agree to others' comment, within 10 years, we will see at where the differences are. If Danes approach is better, ALL THE ESCORT IN THE WORLD will be built in the same manner and get half a price. I am 99.9% sure, it will not be so.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I don't no if this has come up yet if so sorry but in Warship IFR this month on page 28 the Danish chief of naval staff states the Iver Huitifeldt class will be fitted with towed array sonar anyone know what type

Edit this is to happen by 2021

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

given the Danish navy is now going to fit towed array sonar on the IH class around 2021 this could allow the RN to look at how well it works with a view to type 31

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Technology is merciless. If one product is cheaper than other product with similar capability, it means;
1: technological break-though enabled much more efficient building
2: money input other than purchase contract exists (state subsidiary (*1), damping etc... )
Do you not think there might be a 3rd option, that an uncompetitive market fails to restrain the profit motive? Might it be that one product just has a bigger profit margin?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

I think you have a good point there, especially if the Integration was done in-house by the Danish Navy. There certainly couldn’t have been much featherbedding by OMT otherwise they’d still be in business.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Think you could call this somewhat of a mess, not pleasant reading

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mainte ... -mount-up/

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Roders96 wrote:
NickC wrote:" Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate design is lacking "something""- Can you provide ANY justification for this comment, to me pure hokum.
Completely agree. Just because most naval shipbuilding markets are rigged as hell doesn't mean the Danish didn't succeed in producing something efficiently.
Misunderstanding here is.

Actually, I have no objection to most of your comments. Danes was/is as efficient as other top-tier shipyards.

My point is, Danes was/is NOT twice more efficient than other top-tier shipyards.

Technology is merciless. If one product is cheaper than other product with similar capability, it means;
1: technological break-though enabled much more efficient building
2: money input other than purchase contract exists (state subsidiary (*1), damping etc... )

I am talking about item-1.

If you look at any technological history, any efficient technology, if it is as significant as making it TWICE better, is introduced, stolen, copied and anyway utilized by the rival companies within several years.

See Netherlands Damen and French Naval. Their corvette building "innovation" (integrated mast including CIC, tested and verified even before the block welded with the main hull) is now common. Block building, super-block building (installing most of the kits before welding the hull), etc. are utilized in all these shipyards = this is clearly an efficient technology.

I think Danish Danes shipyards was/is as efficient as other top-tier ship yards. And, as T31 "looks like" only half a cost of other similar-sized escorts, there are clear reasons there = T31 lacks something compared to other escorts which are as twice as expensive than T31 (FTI, F100, etc). What is it? This is my SOLE point.

This is just a logical thinking, and far from "pure hokum".

And I also agree to others' comment, within 10 years, we will see at where the differences are. If Danes approach is better, ALL THE ESCORT IN THE WORLD will be built in the same manner and get half a price. I am 99.9% sure, it will not be so.
Donals-san you are totally missing the point, OMT bring their 50+ years wealth of experience/expertise in designing commercial ships (eg the Maersk Triple E class of 31x 200,000t+ container ships) that operate not just 24/7 but 24/365 with cutting edge commercial tech, which enabled them to design IH with less half the crew of a T45.

There are two golden rules you must adhere to if you wish to achieve a low cost effective warship, 1) is that the design must be 100% complete before you start build, not 95% and all kit available off the shelf, so NO new unproven tech and 2) a single function ship.

The one billion cost T45 is a classic example breaking rule number one, 'NO unproven new tech' eg incorporating the unproven WR21 which has proved a failure, with T26 Navy said they would learn the lesson from the T45 and only use proven equipment only to break rule number two big time in building a multi-function ship, as Fallen expounded the design of T26 was as ASW and Amphib ship, if purely ASW ship there would have been no need for Chinook flight deck, the very large mission bay, VLS cells, 5" main gun with its expensive automated magazine etc. The resultant cost to the RN is only 6 T45s not the planned 12 and may be possible 8 T26 not the 13 planned and 5 T31 OPVs.

You can argue the case for multi-function ships but you have to accept that even when built efficiently say as FREMM / F110 they cost double the cost of a single function ship, let alone ~ three+ times for the T26.

So there is no magic in in the low cost of OMT designed Iver Huitfeldt class, just a very good design with proven tech single function AAW ship.

Note: classic example of the OMT design smarts for the IH, navy electronic gear needs to be built to take explosive shocks, making it very expensive, OMT designed in shock protected deck islands for CIC etc so as to be able to use standard commercial kit, IH passed its underwater explosive trials with no problems, it doesn't stop some people calling IH a cheap commercial ship and not built to 'real' navy standards.

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 »

NickC wrote:Donals-san you are totally missing the point, OMT bring their 50+ years wealth of experience/expertise in designing commercial ships (eg the Maersk Triple E class of 31x 200,000t+ container ships) that operate not just 24/7 but 24/365 with cutting edge commercial tech, which enabled them to design IH with less half the crew of a T45.

There are two golden rules you must adhere to if you wish to achieve a low cost effective warship, 1) is that the design must be 100% complete before you start build, not 95% and all kit available off the shelf, so NO new unproven tech and 2) a single function ship.
Sorry, I could not understand your point. Your two items are well known issue from decades ago, nothing new.

This is part of the reason 6th T45 unit cost was only 650M GBP, while the average cost of 6 T45s are exceeding 1B GBP per ship (other two reasons are, the Sea Viper's development cost, and also well-know "learning curve" of later ships).

As they know your two items, German Brandenburg-class frigates are of modified MEKO 360 design, and Sachsen-class are of modified Brandenburg-class itself. But, they are NOT built with a half the price of Dutch De Zeven Provincien-class (= an all-new design ship).

So, no, clearly, the two items are not good enough to make it half in cost (albeit surely good approach to save cost).

Also, even with such common knowledge, Naval, Navantia, Fincantierri (and even including BAE) is building their escorts with their way. I'm afraid you are saying all the top-tier shipyards are too stupid to learn anything from outside. I do not think so.

If this is not your logic, and just I misread it, I'm very sorry and please just ignore this part.

Then the second part.
You can argue the case for multi-function ships but you have to accept that even when built efficiently say as FREMM / F110 they cost double the cost of a single function ship, let alone ~ three+ times for the T26.

So there is no magic in in the low cost of OMT designed Iver Huitfeldt class, just a very good design with proven tech single function AAW ship.
Are you saying if French FTI-class frigate is built without sonars and omit ASW capability from its CMS, it will be half the cost (because it is only for AAW)? I do not think so.

Although just speculation, I think the reason T31 Arrowhead 140 is so cheap is simply because its fighting system is kept simple. We all know Al Khareef class corvette was built with 144M GBP per hull in 2007 order. It has a SMART-S 3D radar, a 3-inch gun, 2x 30mm gun, a helicopter, 12 Sea MICA SAM, and 4 SSMs, controlled via TACTICOS CMS, and built in UK. To make it cheap, the hull is apparently of OPV standard (guess, but common to many export corvettes), and also its CMS shall be very simple (guess). What I am afraid is, T31's CMS shall also be as simple as that of Al Khareef corvettes, to make it cheap. Actually, its armaments and CMS-brand are almost the same, while T31 hull is large and of frigate standard = more expensive.

"A corvette level fighting system for a GP frigate to keep it cheap", itself is not a bad idea, I think. This is simply because modern corvettes are very versatile (although far below the level of modern frigates). But, it also means upgrading T31 to make it a "true escort" might cost a lot.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
NickC wrote:Donals-san you are totally missing the point, OMT bring their 50+ years wealth of experience/expertise in designing commercial ships (eg the Maersk Triple E class of 31x 200,000t+ container ships) that operate not just 24/7 but 24/365 with cutting edge commercial tech, which enabled them to design IH with less half the crew of a T45.

There are two golden rules you must adhere to if you wish to achieve a low cost effective warship, 1) is that the design must be 100% complete before you start build, not 95% and all kit available off the shelf, so NO new unproven tech and 2) a single function ship.
Sorry, I could not understand your point. Your two items are well known issue from decades ago, nothing new.

This is part of the reason 6th T45 unit cost was only 650M GBP, while the average cost of 6 T45s are exceeding 1B GBP per ship (other two reasons are, the Sea Viper's development cost, and also well-know "learning curve" of later ships).

As they know your two items, German Brandenburg-class frigates are of modified MEKO 360 design, and Sachsen-class are of modified Brandenburg-class itself. But, they are NOT built with a half the price of Dutch De Zeven Provincien-class (= an all-new design ship).

So, no, clearly, the two items are not good enough to make it half in cost (albeit surely good approach to save cost).

Also, even with such common knowledge, Naval, Navantia, Fincantierri (and even including BAE) is building their escorts with their way. I'm afraid you are saying all the top-tier shipyards are too stupid to learn anything from outside. I do not think so.

If this is not your logic, and just I misread it, I'm very sorry and please just ignore this part.

Then the second part.
You can argue the case for multi-function ships but you have to accept that even when built efficiently say as FREMM / F110 they cost double the cost of a single function ship, let alone ~ three+ times for the T26.

So there is no magic in in the low cost of OMT designed Iver Huitfeldt class, just a very good design with proven tech single function AAW ship.
Are you saying if French FTI-class frigate is built without sonars and omit ASW capability from its CMS, it will be half the cost (because it is only for AAW)? I do not think so.

Although just speculation, I think the reason T31 Arrowhead 140 is so cheap is simply because its fighting system is kept simple. We all know Al Khareef class corvette was built with 144M GBP per hull in 2007 order. It has a SMART-S 3D radar, a 3-inch gun, 2x 30mm gun, a helicopter, 12 Sea MICA SAM, and 4 SSMs, controlled via TACTICOS CMS, and built in UK. To make it cheap, the hull is apparently of OPV standard (guess, but common to many export corvettes), and also its CMS shall be very simple (guess). What I am afraid is, T31's CMS shall also be as simple as that of Al Khareef corvettes, to make it cheap. Actually, its armaments and CMS-brand are almost the same, while T31 hull is large and of frigate standard = more expensive.

"A corvette level fighting system for a GP frigate to keep it cheap", itself is not a bad idea, I think. This is simply because modern corvettes are very versatile (although far below the level of modern frigates). But, it also means upgrading T31 to make it a "true escort" might cost a lot.
Donald-san

You earlier stated "Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate design is lacking "something"", asked you to explain this comment, reading your last post I interpolate your speculation as some how the Iver Huitfeldt class are not 'real' navy ships which can find no justification for.

In my previous post I thought it was quite clear in explaining how the Danes achieved the low cost and there was no magic involved partially by abiding the two golden rules you must adhere to if you wish to achieve a low cost effective warship, 1) is that the design must be 100% complete before you start build, not 95% and all kit available off the shelf, so NO new unproven tech and 2) a single function ship."
donald_of_tokyo wrote:" Sorry, I could not understand your point. Your two items are well known issue from decades ago, nothing new."
Well I'm afraid can't be any clearer, pointed to two classic examples where the rules were ignored, rule 1) NO new unproven tech eg the T45 which was fitted with an expensive experimental propulsion system which costing a fortune in ongoing development/maintenance and upgrades and even though T45 costing a £billion per ship there was not enough £s to fit all its weapon bays with VLS cells, instead one bay kitted it out as gym LOL, and rule 2) single function ship, the ASW T26 originally quoted as £350/450 million per ship, changed to multi-mission ASW and Amphib, due to the near criminal incompetence the costs were allowed to spiral out of control to £4 billion programme for the first three ships including its development, don't know what planet the Admiralty were on to think the Treasury would fund the full thirteen ships, result the Treasury now taken control and mandating max £1.25 billion T31 which only buys a long range OPV.

The other point the Danes avoided was big spend on R&D, all kit was off the shelf eg compare to the new French FDI (Defense and Intervention Frigate), note name changed from FTI, which you mention, not my favourite as tumblehome hull design, has only 16 A50 VLS cells as opposed to the 56 VLS cells fitted to the IH, and much more expensive ship as budget said to be €3.8 billion euros €760 million each, though have seen €630 quoted, why the high cost, partially will be the cost of the new gen Thales CMS tech and heavily promoted as an all digital ship, also new gen GaN radar and integrated mast, French can validly claim will support French industry but it costs, a small country like Denmark is not in that game.

It does annoy me when people put words into my mouth I did not say or infer re your comments even though you qualify if by
donald_of_tokyo wrote: "If this is not your logic, and just I misread it, I'm very sorry" and please just ignore this part.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote:T45 which was fitted with an expensive experimental propulsion system which costing a fortune in ongoing development/maintenance and upgrades and even though T45 costing a £billion per ship
Nick once again you seem to suggest that the reason the T45 is so expensive is the propulsion system. What evidence for this do you have? The WR-21, which was an american program was , was quoted by the US Navy as a cost of $50m per ship including development costs.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:single function ship, the ASW T26 originally quoted as £350/450 million per ship, changed to multi-mission ASW and Amphib, due to the near criminal incompetence the costs were allowed to spiral out of control to £4 billion programme for the first three ships including its development, don't know what planet the Admiralty were on to think the Treasury would fund the full thirteen ships, result the Treasury now taken control
I like the summary :thumbup:
experimental propulsion system which costing a fortune in ongoing development/maintenance and upgrades
I think on this one there is some noise in the 'channel' as the early wording was 'just' WR-21... when it is the totality of the propulsion system... been writing about the electric-ship mafia over the last ten years (this forum is not as old :) ), who had made so much noise - about all the good things 'it' brings[to the Xmas tune :) ] that the "less educated" final decision makers decided to push the boat out. And the PIPs have not squeeked yet, REF the underlined above, but allegedly the first of the T-45s will sail out from that upgrade some time in the latter half of the coming year.
- then we will be in the clear, some time by the mid-20s, when a NAO appendix to their 2007 report picked up on the test findings already then pointing to the problems that have since been realised
- a lot of folks may think it is a good thing that such detailed appendices are no longer produced... not me :lol: , though
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:not me :lol: , though
.. not me either. Just a cursory glance at old NAO reports shows that Nigel is talking out of his derriere when it comes to the T45. Same goes for his IH commentary. He REALLY needs to spend a couple days reading up of the history of both programs. It's been covered in gory detail dozens of times. Or just shut the hell up. Or both.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote:
NickC wrote:T45 which was fitted with an expensive experimental propulsion system which costing a fortune in ongoing development/maintenance and upgrades and even though T45 costing a £billion per ship
Nick once again you seem to suggest that the reason the T45 is so expensive is the propulsion system. What evidence for this do you have? The WR-21, which was an american program was , was quoted by the US Navy as a cost of $50m per ship including development costs.
Have seen no explicit figures for cost of the T45 IEP propulsion but would have thought a higher figure, but if $50 million per ship that's not the problem, its the breakdowns of the propulsion system that will result in Dauntless being non-operational for near six years, the £160 million PIP for installing the new DGs etc., and unknown millions RR funded for re-design and re-build the Westinghouse recuperator and the continuous and ongoing modifications by BAE of the integrated electronics. Would not be surprised if post build costs of T45 IEP approx £250 million in total, besides T45 fleet average operational days may be low as 100 per year.

That's the consequence of the gamble, and it was an unforgivable gamble RN took to fit fit the experimental IEP/WR21 and it has not unexpectedly blown up in their face big time, as said RN broke golden rule #1, ship design must be 100% complete before you start build, not 95% and all kit available off the shelf with NO new unproven tech.

Worth a read of current post Save the Royal Navy, "Maintenance problems for the Royal Navy mount up" and some informative comments December 8th, a fair amount of detail on the T45 IEP problems.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mainte ... -mount-up/

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk:
Looking at my above post realised did not fully answer question as why T45 so expensive at £6 billion, as in addition to its IEP as mentioned by ArmChairCivy a big percentage of the approx £2 billion T45 R&D was for the Sampson radar and its CMS for the Aster missiles

Would guess Sampson was costly, so costly that for QNLZ and PoW BAE went with the less costly S1850M, a UK version of the Thales Nederland SMART-L, as said just my guess.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Wasn't the development cost of the whole PAMMS programme, Rader, CMS and Aster/Sylver the main contributor to the cost of the T-45s, together with the reduction in numbers so the cost per ship rose dramatically? I cannot see how the propulsion was a major factor in the original programme but it is sure gong to have a impact on the through life support coast of the six ships. Do people think the modification and repair work on the propulsion system will curtail and major updates on the class whilst they are in service? Should the MoD do just enough to get them operational as per their original specifications, and start to look at bringing a replacement on line based on the T-26, for delivery in the mid to late 2030s to maintain continuity of warship/escort production at BAe?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Yes, if I had a say in it I would just keep the T45 running without any major upgrades and push for the replacement ( if based on the T26 hull ) as soon as possible to hopefully aid commonality and maybe save a few pounds on a smaller crew? as somebody suggested previously think about omitting the multi mission bay for an increase in the missile load as they will be with the carriers most of the time, CAMM aswell as Aster (or replacement) is essential.

I wonder if the T45 replacement is built early weather there would be a market for a second hand T45 ???

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

serge750 wrote:Yes, if I had a say in it I would just keep the T45 running without any major upgrades and push for the replacement ( if based on the T26 hull ) as soon as possible to hopefully aid commonality and maybe save a few pounds on a smaller crew? as somebody suggested previously think about omitting the multi mission bay for an increase in the missile load as they will be with the carriers most of the time, CAMM aswell as Aster (or replacement) is essential.

I wonder if the T45 replacement is built early weather there would be a market for a second hand T45 ???
What nonsense it is going to take BAE at least 15 years to build the Type 26s. HMS London isn't planned to launch until nearly 2035.
We need to do the power upgrades they should be fine. Or if the WR-21s are still a problem drop in a couple of MT30s.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Personally I don’t think the T26 hull is going to be big enough for the t45 replacement, to be competitive in the 2030s we’ll need 96+ silos and power to support directed energy weapons. I understand the Italians are going 10000t plus, KDX3 is already over 10k at full load. There’s plenty of time, it may as well be a new hull

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I wasn't saying do not do the planned engine upgrades to keep them going for now, I was saying do not do any future upgrades like mk 41 or future surface to surface missile or any unnecessary upgrades that increase their effectiveness (unless H&S concerns etc) just keep them ticking over until they can be replaced by a possible T26 hull based replacement in the mid 2030 as stated, very near the end of their service life but....

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SD67 wrote:Personally I don’t think the T26 hull is going to be big enough for the t45 replacement, to be competitive in the 2030s we’ll need 96+ silos and power to support directed energy weapons. I understand the Italians are going 10000t plus, KDX3 is already over 10k at full load. There’s plenty of time, it may as well be a new hull
Why not take the T26 design and add a 15m odd mid ship plug, this would give enough space for 48-64 Mk41s mid ship while keeping the mission bay, add this to the space at front which looks enough for 48 Mk41s if the mushroom solos are removed.

The engines on any T45 replacement would be different to that of the T26 due to main being that the engine set on the T26 is set up for ASW.

Post Reply