UK Defence Forum

Roders96 wrote:Each one could have 100 SP3 each and still have enough space for 28 camm each.

Pity Vertical Launch SP3 doesn't exist, isn't being developed, hasn't been proposed and isn't funded.

Roders96 wrote: I don't think the 32 mk41 upgrade is that much of a stretch if there's been 100m GFE per ship.

Is that a fact, or speculation?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Roders96 wrote: I don't think the 32 mk41 upgrade is that much of a stretch if there's been 100m GFE per ship.

Is that a fact, or speculation?

Just going off what has previously discussed in here. 500m has appeared from somewhere and it isn't going to Babcock!

RichardIC wrote:

Roders96 wrote:Each one could have 100 SP3 each and still have enough space for 28 camm each.

Pity Vertical Launch SP3 doesn't exist, isn't being developed, hasn't been proposed and isn't funded.

Similar was said about T31 itself not long ago. Amazing what happens when things become cost-effective! Treasury is far more likely to get on board with new munitions if it makes better use of existing stockpiles.

Roders96 wrote:500m has appeared from somewhere and it isn't going to Babcock!

Been wondering about this same thing...

Roders96 wrote:Similar was said about T31 itself not long ago. Amazing what happens when things become cost-effective!

T31 (although it didn’t yet have the name) was specifically written into SDSR 2015.

Surfaced launched Spear 3 is a fantasy weapon.

RichardIC wrote:Surfaced launched Spear 3 is a fantasy weapon.

Not in development, but not entirely fantasy - it's in MBDA's mind as a potential future development - from TD

In a maritime context, MBDA has shown an artist’s impression of SPEAR with a booster, quad packed into a CAMM launch cell. This means customers of the CAMM system will be able to easily deploy an all-weather land attack and anti-surface guided weapon, a weapon with a multi-mode seeker, tactical data link and range in excess of 100km and one that can hit moving targets. Smaller vessels will be able to pack a serious punch with very little positioning, top weight and efflux management issues.

Caribbean wrote:efflux management issues.

Would that be a claim "too far", effortlessly going from a cold launch CAMM to a hot-launch SP3, both quadpacked, which is bound to restrict options for efflux mgt?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Caribbean wrote:efflux management issues.

Would that be a claim "too far", effortlessly going from a cold launch CAMM to a hot-launch SP3, both quadpacked, which is bound to restrict options for efflux mgt?

Could SP3 be cold launched also? Would it depend on the VLS itself?

Very little efflux management issues means cold launch as does sharing CAMM VLS.

For me we need to get type 31 into service with the 57mm 2 x 40mm and 24 CAMM then we should look to fit the naval ship missile as soon as we can . This would give us a good ship capable of area defence of its self and others around it plus some land attack

Tempest414 wrote:This would give us a good ship capable of area defence

As long as it’s above water...

Ron5 wrote:Just a couple of comments:

Sir Humphrey is a prize prat whose sole purpose is to deify the civil service. Most of what he writes is also bullshit and should be ignored.

Which means he actually knows what hes talking about and doesn't concur with your views .......

Pongoglo wrote:

Ron5 wrote:Just a couple of comments:

Sir Humphrey is a prize prat whose sole purpose is to deify the civil service. Most of what he writes is also bullshit and should be ignored.

Pongoglo wrote: Which means he actually knows what hes talking about and doesn't concur with your views .......

Totally aside from the thread's headline: Mr Angry from Tunbridge Wells (or Huitsin Nevada?) is very welcome as without such 'eccentric' ... er, often well-informed views, these pages would be devoid of active discussion.

By that I mean for & against; while we might still get to be well informed of what is being reported around the world - but more and more of those 'messages' or facts are paid for by the dominant companies. In Defence: not that many.

And as we know from Russian propaganda, what is coming at you, from all angles, though not necessarily in a coherent form, does not matter as the "truth" will just be lost in the noise.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Pongoglo wrote:

Ron5 wrote:Just a couple of comments:

Sir Humphrey is a prize prat whose sole purpose is to deify the civil service. Most of what he writes is also bullshit and should be ignored.

Pongoglo wrote: Which means he actually knows what hes talking about and doesn't concur with your views .......

Totally aside from the thread's headline: Mr Angry from Tunbridge Wells (or Huitsin Nevada?) is very welcome as without such 'eccentric' ... er, often well-informed views, these pages would be devoid of active discussion.

By that I mean for & against; while we might still get to be well informed of what is being reported around the world - but more and more of those 'messages' or facts are paid for by the dominant companies. In Defence: not that many.

And as we know from Russian propaganda, what is coming at you, from all angles, though not necessarily in a coherent form, does not matter as the "truth" will just be lost in the noise.

Was always so but now those with long enough boots can wade through the bull and occasionally hit his toe on a rock of truth thanks to the bottomless supply of internet data,.

Angry of Sahuarita, Arizona

I really hope the T-26 "City" class evolves as the batches are ordered. The first three will make fine ASW platforms but there do not make the maximum use of the design. I would like to see the next batch at least remove the Sea Ceptor Mushrooms and add an additional Mk41 and yes adopt the ExLS system, initially the four round insert module.

Using ExLS has to be the simples way of fitting Sea Ceptor to other vessels due to its compactness and scalability. With each three cell standalone to have twelve missiles and these can be installed almost anywhere, and there spears to be far less debris form each launch compared to the existing launchers. And no I am not sponsored by the manufacturer.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

NickC wrote:F110 looks similar to earlier T26 design variant of new gen T23 before increased in size for large amphib/mission bay and large Chinook flight deck etc.

Hmmm, they don't need the Global Cruiser, do they
- do we?
- I think we do. Esp. as the next batches can be optimised to be "leaning into" different roles. Not saying "AAW"... as that will come later, but: possibly before the 8th unit
Err, onto the right thread... plenty quick!

Moved from T31 News

Apples to oranges but if we take the Spanish F110 total budget for the five full fat ASW frigates including the build and development costs of 4,317 million euros, approx £3,700 million, which is the BAE contract cost for three T26s, are you saying that you would stick with decision for 3 T26 'Global Cruisers' verse the past possible option of 5 new gen option T23/T26, if we can assume BAE could have matched F110 budget, very big assumption.

'can be optimised to be "leaning into" different roles. Not saying "AAW"... '
Intrigued as to what other roles thinking for T26 other than AAW, my thought using the T31 HM&E would be a much more cost effective basis for an AAW destroyer (Iver Huitfeldt class) and if necessary small plug for 64 VLS cells than using the expensive T26 ASW quiet HED propulsion HM&E, can see no need for a costly quiet propulsion system for AAW frigate/destroyer. What do you think would be the advantages of using T26 as basis of AAW destroyer to justify its higher cost?

There is a number of things that need to be worked though here the F-110 at a cost of say 450 million is around the cost of FTI which in its self is a cheaper down grade option to FREMM so my question would be what have the F-110 team side stepped to come in at this price.

As for T-31 given a budget of 400 million it could be really nice ship for the RN it could have had looked more like this

Good radar
Good CMS
Good Hull mounted sonar
Merlin capable hangar
Chinook capable fight deck
1 x 5" main gun , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 x CAMM , 8 x NSM

I wonder if the new design has any structural similarities to the Norwegian Frigates, one of which seems to suffer far greater damage from a collision than say a USN vessel involved in a similar incident but with a bigger vessels? The fact that the Spanish will have little or no infrastructure to put in place to start building these new ships and have a large trained workforce has got to help keep costs down. The fact that these new vessels are and evolutionary design would also help. There are probably a number of factors that we cannot see that also influence the price but doing any comparison to what we could build for the same price is pretty much pointless.

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder if the new design has any structural similarities to the Norwegian Frigates, one of which seems to suffer far greater damage from a collision than say a USN vessel involved in a similar incident but with a bigger vessels? The fact that the Spanish will have little or no infrastructure to put in place to start building these new ships and have a large trained workforce has got to help keep costs down. The fact that these new vessels are and evolutionary design would also help. There are probably a number of factors that we cannot see that also influence the price but doing any comparison to what we could build for the same price is pretty much pointless.

Good point if the Navantia learnt lessons from the sinking of the HNoMS Helge Ingstad and are incorporated into the F110, did read strong suggestion that the hollow propeller shaft tubes allowed flooding of adjacent 'water tight' compartments, needs investigation into ship stability, bilge system etc., Ingstad was a derivative of Navantia F100 design.

Tempest414 wrote:There is a number of things that need to be worked though here the F-110 at a cost of say 450 million is around the cost of FTI which in its self is a cheaper down grade option to FREMM so my question would be what have the F-110 team side stepped to come in at this price.

IF the build cost of F110 is approx £450 million, there could be other reasons than Navantia side stepped certain items to come in at this price

A. Good design practice as the Danes with Iver Huitfeldt class, if understand correctly total cost was $1,150 million ~£890 million for the three ships, less than the cost of a single T45?

B. Efficient shipyards - the Damen MD estimated USN was paying about three times the price of comparable Royal Netherlands Navy vessels.

Iver Huitfeldt briefing
https://web.archive.org/web/20150715032 ... 202014.pdf

NickC wrote:IF the build cost of F110 is approx £450 million, there could be other reasons than Navantia side stepped certain items to come in at this price

A. Good design practice as the Danes with Iver Huitfeldt class, if understand correctly total cost was $1,150 million ~£890 million for the three ships, less than the cost of a single T45?

B. Efficient shipyards - the Damen MD estimated USN was paying about three times the price of comparable Royal Netherlands Navy vessels.

Iver Huitfeldt briefing
https://web.archive.org/web/20150715032 ... 202014.pdf

There could be a number of reasons I agree but we all know that Navantia is well sursportted by the Spanish gov so my guess is that F-110 real cost is closer to 600 million when all things are placed on the table. As for the IH class we know that part of the low cost came from having the hulls built in East Europe and fitted out in a naval ship yard and we also know that most top end escorts in the West cost some where between 600 and 900 million to build

Roders96 wrote:On a side note - are there any historic threads in this forum discussing what kind of capabilities would be required to counter Iran's speedboat flotilla?

Look at the Battle of Bubiyan. TLDR; get a Helicopter!

Tempest414 wrote: As for the IH class we know that part of the low cost came from having the hulls built in East Europe and fitted out in a naval ship yard and we also know that most top end escorts in the West cost some where between 600 and 900 million to build

The Danes did have the Iver Huitfeldt class hulls built in eastern european shipyards and the Danish Navy themselves took on the integration to keep within their tight budget (very impressed Danish Navy had the in-house expertise).

If you take the USN NAVSEA SEA 05C Cost Engineering and Industrial Analysis Division figures for ship build costs as in right ballpark quotes cost of Hull as 8% and similarly Integration & Engineering 8%, so assuming Danes saved 25% by having hull built in eastern europe, giving 2% saving plus the 8% for in-house I & E would give total saving of 10% on build cost.

The actual total cost of the three Iver Huitfeldt class ships $1,150 million and adding on 10% for above savings gives $1,265 million, approx £1 billion, £333 million per ship which is way below your "top end escorts in the West cost some where between 600 and 900 million to build" it shows how the Danish design can move the metric to a lower level by £200-300 million per ship, makes the T45 if as reputed £1 billion per ship look very expensive.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FREMM exports total one ship to Egypt and one to Morocco. Sure Navantia exported F100 to Norway. But I’m not sure you can draw any conclusions on IH from that.

The fact is the Danes don’t have a great deal of clout on the global arms market there’s no real political / industrial benefits for a customer. And the parent yard is out of business. We’ll see how T31 fares with Royal Navy backing and Babcock production expertise - personally I’m optimistic.