Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Yes, it needs speeding up T26 build. The first 3 to go is not problem.
- T23GP-hull1 and 2 shall decommission soon, with no impact on fleet deployment.
- Considering the "delivery" year of 2025, T26-hull1 will be manned by the crew of T23GP-3 (to decommission on 2025), (the crew is needed when the ship is delivered, not when it is commissioned).
- T26-hull-2 will be delivered on 2026, with crew from T23GP-4 (2026). T23GP-5 will decommission on 2027 and the crew will be used elsewhere.
- T26-hull-3 will be delivered on 2028, with crew from T23ASW-1 (2027).

From here, we need to speed up to build program. With improving learning curve, I think "9" is possible. To make it "10", use Camell Laired to build some blocks.
Thanks for the detailed description, very nicely explained on the schedule and I fully agree that's how it is best done to focus on "proper" ships...with one exception. What is the solution for the Clyde yard issue? I can promise you that "it's now 10, not 13" will come up in a big way. Currently the wishy-washy implication that T31e will have a presence on the Clyde is all thats holding off the inevitable "why isn't it here?" controversy.

How would this move prevent that? And with Brexit, the MoD must tread more carefully than ever to not give the SNP ammunition to risk a second Indy Ref; given how important Scotland is to the UK (and how important the UK is to millions living in Scotland...even if they don't realise it) to overall strategic defence requirements.

It's impossible to separate the two issues.

To not just be throwing up negatives, my personal approach would be to do exactly what you said, but there must be allowance in some way for a "bonus" to be thrown their way. The 5 Rivers have marginally helped this, but a confirmation of the Type 45 replacement being announced in tandem with the Type 26 plan for 10 might also help to show there will be no end to the drumbeat. But that is very much "words not actions" with how far ahead it's talking.

Any thoughts? You're generally better at keeping budget thoughts than I am.

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:For me freeing up type 26 's is key to making the UK a true global force.
We both see "the same thing"= a global cruiser
- you want to use it (as such)
- I see gaps arising (from such use) => do not use them in the extended role, acknowledge that they will be tied up to the MTF(s) and down-spec hulls 4-8, in order to up-spec T31s
Lord Jim wrote: This would be a dedicated AAW platform first and foremost, and the idea would be to keep the same hull as the T-26. In this role the Mission Bay is not essential.
- what a good idea :)
- possible to dovetail into the overall T-26 (&X) construction prgrm, too

Once you have a 'rounded' escort fleet on two hulls, you can start to up-spec... and you betcha! we will be that far into the future that what is on the catalogue now will not be the options' ticked' then
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)

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:AS for using a T-26 derivative to eventually replace the T-45
If we wanted a new destroyer today, that would be the obvious thing to do.

However the RN need a replacement in 25 years time, and AAW could look completely different then. The T26 might be too small for a state of the art radar in 2040, or maybe there will be no radar, but a virtual panel might be distributed around in the sky.
Lord Jim wrote:As for the Sylver VLS, well it is actually a very good area defence system.
It isn't it's a box to put things in.
@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 »

Tempest414 wrote:2 x Carrier groups with 1 x Carrier , 1 x Astute , 2 x type 45 AAW , 2 x type 31/XX ASW , 1 tide , 1 FSS

1 x Ampib group with 1 x Canberra class , 6 x type 26 Global combat ship , 2 x Bay class , 3 x Point class , 1 Tide
This is pigeonholing too much. Surely the point of an ASW equipped T31 is to maintain the number of real escorts at 19, and with that enabling greater flexibility to Delphi the right asset in the right place.

Without ASW the T31 is just a patrol frigate, and the number of escorts at the RN's disposal drops to 14. In this instance there is little option but to lock most of the T26 to the carriers.

Having more real escorts brings much greater operational freedoms, a real escort can switch from chasing pirates to hunting subs at a days notice. That is not true of a patrol frigate.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

shark bait wrote:It isn't it's a box to put Aster missiles in.
Tailored a little to make clear the more restrictive reality.

Moving away from that horrendously limited silo model needs to happen. You can't even put Asters in the A70s for SCALP (as I have heard from the articles on the FREMMs) for goodness sake...

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 »

Yes, if it isn't clear by now, Sylver is a gamble that didn't pull off, thus the switch to MK41.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote:
shark bait wrote:It isn't it's a box to put Aster missiles in.
Tailored a little to make clear the more restrictive reality.

Moving away from that horrendously limited silo model needs to happen.
While I agree (with the principle), you have heard from the manufacturer that SeaCeptors can be quad-packed into them?
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:Without ASW the T31 is just a patrol frigate.....In this instance there is little option but to lock most of the T26 to the carriers.
This is the dilemma, upgrade the T31 or build 2 more T26's. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer hence this conversation keeps going around in circles.

A few things to consider,

The T26 build programme is horrendously inefficient, there is lots of money contained within the current budget envelope that could be released. Just overcome the in year budget straightjacket and the whole programme would be transformed. Anything is possible if the political will is there.

If ASW is the primary concern I would concentrate on the T26 hull. We need at least 12, and a way must be found to do it.

The T31 should stop trying to be light and start trying to be big and multi use. I belive the cheapest way to upgrade the performance of the T31 is to allow it to carry multiple Wildcats and Merlins along with the endless offboard systems that are still under development.

For a true ASuW capability why not design the T31 to be able to embark and deploy 3 or 4 Wildcats simultaneously? For an effective ASW capability why not design in the capability of embarking and deploying 2 or 3 Merlins?

If the ASuW and ASW capabilities aren't required for a given deployment then only embark a single Wildcat and the T31 could patrol the globe in a very cost effective way without tying up the Tier1 escorts.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: and a way must be found to do it.
It is this attitude that has the MOD is a perpetual state of disaster. Military leadership has held this view for decades, and they still haven't found the solution.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
shark bait wrote:It isn't it's a box to put Aster missiles in.
Tailored a little to make clear the more restrictive reality.

Moving away from that horrendously limited silo model needs to happen.
While I agree (with the principle), you have heard from the manufacturer that SeaCeptors can be quad-packed into them?
CAMM can be quad packed in the mk41, if quad packing CAMM is the only reason for having sylver ( besides aster 30 ) then it'd be cheaper to go stand alone ExLS or mk41 and pay for aster 30 qualification.

Why have 2 type of hot lurnch VLS with 2 strand of training and 2 logistic lines ?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:Military leadership has held this view for decades, and they still haven't found the solution.
In that case they need to keep trying. It's only a financial problem that can be easily solved with more money and a more efficient build programme.

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:Thanks for the detailed description, very nicely explained on the schedule and I fully agree that's how it is best done to focus on "proper" ships...with one exception. What is the solution for the Clyde yard issue? I can promise you that "it's now 10, not 13" will come up in a big way. Currently the wishy-washy implication that T31e will have a presence on the Clyde is all thats holding off the inevitable "why isn't it here?" controversy.
...
To not just be throwing up negatives, my personal approach would be to do exactly what you said, but there must be allowance in some way for a "bonus" to be thrown their way. The 5 Rivers have marginally helped this, but a confirmation of the Type 45 replacement being announced in tandem with the Type 26 plan for 10 might also help to show there will be no end to the drumbeat. But that is very much "words not actions" with how far ahead it's talking.

Any thoughts? You're generally better at keeping budget thoughts than I am.
Thanks, I agree "T45 replacement based on T26 hull (at current plan)" will be the answer. In reality, the "T26 hull for T46" will be significantly modified to be nearly a completely new design. :lol:

Then, going back to the original question; what if we cancel T31e and get 1.5B GBP (not 1.25B)?

Different from the last proposal, here I will leave "non-ship related" issues out of scope (do it in their own budget framework). Then, I shall propose to add 2 T26 to make it 10. I think it will cost 750M GBP x2 = 1.5B GBP, but with improved efficiency, we may get at least 200M GBP back.

To compensate "3 less escort", I would like to improve OPV fleet from current 4 (planned 5) to 7.
- Sell 1 River B1.5 and 1 River B1. Overhaul 2 River B1 with this money, to be used primary for fishery protection/EEZ patrol tasks around British water.
- Keep 2 River B2 as it is, one for Falkland Island Guard Ship, and another for maintenance or to support EEZ patrol.
- and upgrade the 3 remaining River B2 using the 200M GBP, as;
--- add link22 (or link16 if possible)
--- add retractable Wildcat-hangar
--- add 7-cell LMM unit on the forward 30mm turret (Sea Hawk Sigma standard), and locate 20mm CIWS FTR on top of the hangar.
One at Caribbean Ocean a half a year (West Indies Guard ship for non-hurricane season), another at Mediterranean deployment full-time (Gibraltar Guard ship *1), and another will cruise South Atlantic ocean for "good will visit" a half a year (as the now gapped "APT-S"). This is 3 hulls for 0.5+1+0.5 = 2 deployments.

*1: The Med. deployment will free-up HMS Echo at Med, which will eventually free-up Cardigan-bay in Persian Gulf, which will eventually (partly) replace Argus.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:add retractable Wildcat-hangar
Exactly, if it can be done on the Abu Dhabi Class then why not on the RB2's?

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... tions.html

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Thanks for the detailed description, very nicely explained on the schedule and I fully agree that's how it is best done to focus on "proper" ships...with one exception. What is the solution for the Clyde yard issue? I can promise you that "it's now 10, not 13" will come up in a big way. Currently the wishy-washy implication that T31e will have a presence on the Clyde is all thats holding off the inevitable "why isn't it here?" controversy.
...
To not just be throwing up negatives, my personal approach would be to do exactly what you said, but there must be allowance in some way for a "bonus" to be thrown their way. The 5 Rivers have marginally helped this, but a confirmation of the Type 45 replacement being announced in tandem with the Type 26 plan for 10 might also help to show there will be no end to the drumbeat. But that is very much "words not actions" with how far ahead it's talking.

Any thoughts? You're generally better at keeping budget thoughts than I am.
Thanks, I agree "T45 replacement based on T26 hull (at current plan)" will be the answer. In reality, the "T26 hull for T46" will be significantly modified to be nearly a completely new design. :lol:

Then, going back to the original question; what if we cancel T31e and get 1.5B GBP (not 1.25B)?

Different from the last proposal, here I will leave "non-ship related" issues out of scope (do it in their own budget framework). Then, I shall propose to add 2 T26 to make it 10. I think it will cost 750M GBP x2 = 1.5B GBP, but with improved efficiency, we may get at least 200M GBP back.

To compensate "3 less escort", I would like to improve OPV fleet from current 4 (planned 5) to 7.
- Sell 1 River B1.5 and 1 River B1. Overhaul 2 River B1 with this money, to be used primary for fishery protection/EEZ patrol tasks around British water.
- Keep 2 River B2 as it is, one for Falkland Island Guard Ship, and another for maintenance or to support EEZ patrol.
- and upgrade the 3 remaining River B2 using the 200M GBP, as;
--- add link22 (or link16 if possible)
--- add retractable Wildcat-hangar
--- add 7-cell LMM unit on the forward 30mm turret (Sea Hawk Sigma standard), and locate 20mm CIWS FTR on top of the hangar.
One at Caribbean Ocean a half a year (West Indies Guard ship for non-hurricane season), another at Mediterranean deployment full-time (Gibraltar Guard ship *1), and another will cruise South Atlantic ocean for "good will visit" a half a year (as the now gapped "APT-S"). This is 3 hulls for 0.5+1+0.5 = 2 deployments.

*1: The Med. deployment will free-up HMS Echo at Med, which will eventually free-up Cardigan-bay in Persian Gulf, which will eventually (partly) replace Argus.
The only issue I see here is 3 vessels for EEZ will not be enough, with Brexit more will be needed no matter the choice as with Mays plan "she says" we'll be out of the CFP so will have to limit foreign fishing fleets else there was no point in coming out of the CFP, the same goes for no deal this will need to be done as with how country such as France and the Netherlands have been demanding unfettered access during the negotiations I can't see them just stopping.

So unless others means of patrol can be found funded by other departments far more than just 3 OPV will be needed.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Jake1992 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
shark bait wrote:It isn't it's a box to put Aster missiles in.
Tailored a little to make clear the more restrictive reality.

Moving away from that horrendously limited silo model needs to happen.
While I agree (with the principle), you have heard from the manufacturer that SeaCeptors can be quad-packed into them?
CAMM can be quad packed in the mk41, if quad packing CAMM is the only reason for having sylver ( besides aster 30 ) then it'd be cheaper to go stand alone ExLS or mk41 and pay for aster 30 qualification.

Why have 2 type of hot lurnch VLS with 2 strand of training and 2 logistic lines ?
Well that is where we will already be with the Sylver system on the T-45 and the Mk41 on the T-26. Somehow cannot see the Aster 14/30 being cleared for the Mk41 or the SM-2 for the Sylver system. The reason I proposed the Sylver/Aster combo for a T-45 successor was to keep it simple as we already have both it and the infrastructure in place and it works very well. Using the T-26 as a base line it would already have 3-4 MK41s forward with the Sylver amidships replacing the mission bay as I already stated.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
shark bait wrote:It isn't it's a box to put Aster missiles in.
Tailored a little to make clear the more restrictive reality.

Moving away from that horrendously limited silo model needs to happen.
While I agree (with the principle), you have heard from the manufacturer that SeaCeptors can be quad-packed into them?
CAMM can be quad packed in the mk41, if quad packing CAMM is the only reason for having sylver ( besides aster 30 ) then it'd be cheaper to go stand alone ExLS or mk41 and pay for aster 30 qualification.

Why have 2 type of hot lurnch VLS with 2 strand of training and 2 logistic lines ?
Well that is where we will already be with the Sylver system on the T-45 and the Mk41 on the T-26. Somehow cannot see the Aster 14/30 being cleared for the Mk41 or the SM-2 for the Sylver system. The reason I proposed the Sylver/Aster combo for a T-45 successor was to keep it simple as we already have both it and the infrastructure in place and it works very well. Using the T-26 as a base line it would already have 3-4 MK41s forward with the Sylver amidships replacing the mission bay as I already stated.
Getting aster 30 qualified for mk41 is just a matter of someone paying for it, we havnt don't that yet due to thinking sylver would be our all round VLS but as we've learnt it's very limited, the French won't do it as sylver is there only VLS ( national pride won't allow anything else ) and Italy havnt as they don't feel the need and why would the US in all honesty as it doesn't benefit them.
I can see aster 15 being replaced with CAMM and maybe even CAMM-ER in the long run, so we'd be keeping sylver lurnchers and all the accompanying cost only on a small number of vessels for only 1 missile use why ? When it would be cheaper to cut sylver and its supplie cost ( going down to 1 hot lurnch VLS ) and in turn pay the cost needed to qualify aster 30 in mk41, reducing the cost of training and infastuctute is simplifying. ( it's the same way the army is looking to replacing all light armour with one commen platform and not saying well we having the surply chain and infrastructure for all these different types so let's just carry on with new version of these )

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

How to spend 1.5b if we didn’t buy type 31.

500m on maintenance and spares holdings
500m on unmanned air/surface and sub surface craft and emerging systems
250m on NSM and phalanx launchers.
250m on accommodation and personnel incentives

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Will Aster 30 actually fit in a Mk41?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo, would love to see 2 T26s for the price of the T31 programme. I fear that unless more cash is forthcoming then it would be a stretch and we could end up with one being tied up. I also agree that 5 OPVs feels too few, so increasing the number makes sense.

One option could be to buy an additional T26 for £750mn, plus a batch of 5 R3 Rivers with a full hangar for a Wildcat, Artisan / main gun / 30mm guns reused from the T23s plus a Phalanx - with some thought I’m sure we could get these for £150mn each and keep Appledore open.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:Will Aster 30 actually fit in a Mk41?
From what I can find aster 30 is 5m in length and around 200mm in diamitor.
Mk41 comes in 3 missile lengths from 5.3m to 7.7m, I'm unable to find the max diamitor but my guess would be that aster 30 would comfortably fit in the 7.7m strlle length varient.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:. The reason I proposed the Sylver/Aster combo for a T-45 successor was to keep it simple as we already have both it and the infrastructure in place and it works very well.
Sounds anything but simple, it double the types of interfaces, doubling integration and maintenance costs. No navy mixes competing systems on the same platform for a reason!
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:One option could be to buy an additional T26 for £750mn, plus a batch of 5 R3 Rivers with a full hangar for a Wildcat, Artisan / main gun / 30mm guns reused from the T23s plus a Phalanx - with some thought I’m sure we could get these for £150mn each and keep Appledore open.
If you are going down this road then by the time you have done all the redesign work you would be better off with 5 Khareef class with the CAMM and ASM removed

However if we were to ever go down to a 16 ship escort fleet then for me we need to stop all this talk of plugging gaps with some form of River class and get our heads down to building 18 100 meter MHPC Multi-mission sloops in 3 batches of 6 with a budget of 3.5 billion

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:This is pigeonholing too much. Surely the point of an ASW equipped T31 is to maintain the number of real escorts at 19, and with that enabling greater flexibility to Delphi the right asset in the right place.
these are more examples of what can be done if we free up the 8 type 26s however if we wanted to send something less than a T26 somewhere we could as you say swap out 2 type XX ASW from the carrier group for a rotation and put in 2 T26

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:18 100 meter MHPC Multi-mission sloops in 3 batches of 6 with a budget of 3.5 billion
That would keep Appledore open for a while :thumbup:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

My understanding of the sad history of the RN Type 26 (not for BAE)

Why did the MoD/RN allow the Type 26 costs balloon out of control with the result that the for the first 3 ships BAE contract £3.7B, £1.23B each, overall programme cost per MoD Nov. 2018 Equipment Plan £4,242M, £1,414M per ship.

Plan was to control the costs and risk of the T26 by keeping with the principles of through life capability management to maximise pull through from the QNLZ, T45 and T23 capability sustainment/upgrade, capitalising on previous investments and/or existing inventory. The £1B Type 45 was characterised by approx 80% new equipment and 20 % re-use, with the T26 Navy promise that it would be reversed with 20% new and 80% re-use.

March 2010 BAE awarded £127M design contract with original working baseline for the Global Combat Ship design a 141m vessel with a displacement of 6,850t and a range of 7,000 nm at 18 knots and costing an estimated ~ £450M/£500M.

In November 2010 it was reported that the specifications had been pared down, to reduce the cost from £500M to £250-350M per ship. Subsequently, new specification details began to emerge of a smaller 5,400t ship emphasising flexibility and modularity. Unlike the Future Surface Combatant for the Global Combat Ship there would be only one hull design, three versions for export, ASW, AAW and a GP variant.

In 2014 BAE design concept was revealed that it had returned to original working baseline of a large 6,900t ship 149.9 m x 20.8 m (actual true displacement disclosed by the Australian Hunter T26 as 8,000t FLD and with 10% margin built in for normal in service life growth for EOL of 8,800t). Why was this 80% increase in displacement needed from the T23 4,900t which was designed for cold war ASW operations in the North Atlantic.

The answer is it was driven by requirement to act as an amphibious operations platform for special forces with its 100 feet plus mission bay for 4 x 12 metre boats for the insertion of RM/SAS troops and a flight deck big enough and with necessary strength (weight) to accept a CH47 Chinook (ramp down) for troop embarkation plus Mk45 5" gun with its very expensive automated magazine which saves 3/4 crew to give marginal additional firepower support over the standard RN 4.5" Mk8 Mod 1 gun.

The actual T26 GCS KURS: Maritime Fires, SF Operations, Anti-Air Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare, Anti-Submarine Warfare, Coastal Suppression, Maritime Interdiction Operations, Interoperability, Survivability, Readiness, Reach, Intelligence, Standing Commitments, Concurrency, Flexibility and Availability.

Future proofing the multi-mission amphib T26 was a stated requirement informed by the work undertaken by the Defence Concepts and Doctrine Centre to describe the strategic Defence and security context out to 2045 (a total joke as it’s impossible to predict future technologies and their associated requirements, the only solution is to over engineer the ship to a ridiculous degree which costs big time).

All this under the watch of the FSL's, assuming mainly under the failed management of Sir George Zambellas FSL from April 2013 when the KURS were set in stone with the 2014 8,800t design.

In September 2015, the Treasury/MoD added up the cost of the future proofed multi-mission amphib T26 at £11.5B, that figure now looks low, Australian Hunter budget for 9 ships £20B and Canadians budget for 15 ships £48B.

The result surprise, surprise November 2015 SDSR T26 numbers were cut from 13 to 8, Navy had shot themselves in the foot big time by allowing their future proofed multi-mission amphib T26 costs to get out of control. Navy are way under strength in frigates and destroyers numbers so now Navy will have to make do with five T31s to replace the cancelled T26s which in no way can be classed as a RN capable ship.

The 2010 plan was ISD of as early as possible after 2020 to replace the T23's, now ISD is 2027, 17 years after design contract award and presumably stretching out to 2039 with one every 2 years, no wonder BAE cancelled its frigate factory as its investment would never be paid back at such a low build rate.

Its so disappointing after the experience with the T45 and its £1B cost leading to class cut back to six ships, that so say lessons would learned and applied only for the FSLs to dig an even bigger pit for the T26 to fall into.

The lesson to take away is not to build costly, ever larger and more complex multi-mission ships with very expensive future proofing capabilities. The goal should be to build affordable ships to replace on a frequent basis (revert to the T23 thinking whose design life was for 18 years), smaller and cheaper that can be replaced often enough so that the technology is current, only possible with a primary single function ships as with the T23. YVMV.

(Ref: Michal Fallon SECRETARY OF STATE, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, letter 9th Oct. 2014 to Chairman HoC, Defence Committee)
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/com ... t_Ship.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post Reply