UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1598
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 22 Feb 2020, 17:32

NickC wrote:Totally puzzled why talk of a 15m mid body plug to make T26 suitable to fit 48 or so additional Mk41 VLS cells for a AA destroyer variant

Approx 60+m x 20m, 1,200 sq mtrs of the weapons deck taken up by the flight deck, hanger, mission bay, boat bay and aft DGs engine room intakes and exhaust. Would estimate need approx 330 sq mtrs for 48 Mk41 VLS cells, should think no problem down sizing the Chinook 30 m flight deck and reducing size of hanger for a Wildcat, delete the mission bay in entirety, smaller boat bay etc, reduce accommodation by the ~ 50 built in for amphib operations, this is just gold plating for an AA destroyer. Add an additional 8 cell module fwd as the CSC, would give total of 80 VLS cells.

Though saying that think the T31 would make a better basis of an AA destroyer, faster, longer range and cheaper than the very expensive T26 HM&E due to its quiet hull.

Final point don't think new AA destroyer possability likely in next ten years.


It’s to make as little changes as possible to a existing in build / in service design to give commonality through the building of both classes and in service.
You start taking away the mission bay changing the hanger shrinking the flight deck along with the radar changes you might as well design a whole new vessel.

You say it’s all gold plating for an AAW vessel yet Italy seems to believe a vessel of 10,000t with large hanger and flight deck is needed for there next AAW vessel.
With the above in mind you think it’d be better to go with a smaller and old design in terms of the IH really.

Yes one won’t be in the water in the next 10 years but will need to be in service by 2036 to avoided the costly life extensions we’ve seen with the T23s. With that time frame in mind design work will need to by mid 20s at the latest.

Online
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Feb 2020, 18:01

Jake1992 wrote:Could you show me how you see this on an imaged or something if possible as from memory I can only see space for 48 cells forward.


Sorry Jake I am pants at doing image shit however if you go on google image there is a nice topside image that you can enlarge to get a good look at the front missile deck. I think if you turned the Mk-41 cells though 90 degrees put them 2 side by side you could get 8 x 8 cells on that deck giving you 64 and as I say 24 amid-ships makes it 88 cells allowing 2 x as many as type 45 has to day as for the amid-ships cell only being cold launch if that is so they can be fitted with 48 CAMM/ER and 48 Spare 3 / EW

cky7
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby cky7 » 22 Feb 2020, 19:35

Wouldn’t it be the case as with so many modern war ships etc that the platform itself isn’t the ticky bit, it’s the sensors and electronics, t45 was a world. Beater when it entered service but will sooom begin to get s little king in the tooth compared to best in class we need to know what hull we need to take the likely massive 4 faced main AESA along with the spinning l/r surveillance radar and ew kit.?

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1598
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 22 Feb 2020, 22:56

cky7 wrote:Wouldn’t it be the case as with so many modern war ships etc that the platform itself isn’t the ticky bit, it’s the sensors and electronics, t45 was a world. Beater when it entered service but will sooom begin to get s little king in the tooth compared to best in class we need to know what hull we need to take the likely massive 4 faced main AESA along with the spinning l/r surveillance radar and ew kit.?


This is why I don’t agree with Nick C above in that the T31 / IH would be suitable let alone the best for the T4X. At 6000t odd it’s far smaller than what we have today let alone what will be needed, most navy’s are coming to the conclusion that a 10,000t to 12,000t odd vessel will be needed for AAW to allow it to handle the ever increasing radar size, increasing number of VLS needed and larger power set up for all this.

All we have to do is look around the world -
Italy plan 10,000t
Japan already at 10,000t
US plan 10,000t destroyer + 12,000t odd cruiser
Canada plan - 8,000t plus frigate

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11706
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Feb 2020, 08:34

Jake1992 wrote:US plan 10,000t destroyer + 12,000t odd cruiser


The admiral heading the surface ships procurement said (in one of xav's nice articles) half a year ago that balance in the force mix is the driver (though it is imperative to also outpace the evolving threats). Except two words in this, he could well have been speaking about the RN:
"...the budget always gets a vote, so you’ve got to think about what the Navy is doing over the next five to 10 years in terms of ship construction: we’ve got frigates coming online, Columbia (ballistic missile submarines) hands down is the top priority, we’re [err, will be, in the RN case] recapitalizing the sealift fleet, we need to continue building Virginias (attack submarines), we just executed a two-carrier buy,”

In the meanwhile, while thinking whether the AAW ship will look like a cruiser, more of the same, just a new vintage: https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/up ... 24x542.jpg
- and the AAW ship (eating up carrier-killer missiles like popcorn) could well go up to twice the size of the speculation, and not look like a cruiser at all https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/defe ... ense-ship/

... ships of that ilk we might well not be able to afford, but the humble, small-ish IHs will receive the same missiles (SM 2 & 6) as what the above speculated one would be carrying. So not impossible, but for various reasons I think the T26NXT track is far more likely

NickC
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 23 Feb 2020, 12:33

RN next generation AAW destroyer thoughts, if RN had the funding we could build the equivalent of the new Chinese ~13,000t Type 055s with its 112 VLS cells, but we don't, its being spent on Dreadnought and F-35s, RN surface ships existing on the crumbs left over. We need to take on board the recent lessons from the T26 and T45. T26 planned buy of the T26 cut from thirteen to eight due to the first three T26 costing the Treasury £4 billion, result five T31 only fitted out to OPV standard. The expensive T45 cut from twelve to six, with its next generation propulsion system, GT plus heat exchanger, was a disaster resulting most of T45s life sitting pier side and 100s of millions being spent on re-design and propulsion re-builds.

The above pattern of RN recent history with its new ships shows that the priority is to control costs by not taking gambles on untested new tech as with T45 AAW and no gold plating as happened with the T26 ASW eg expensive 30 m heavy flight deck as stressed to take full weight of a Chinook, large mission bay designed for Amphib and Dfid ops, 5" main gun with expensive automated magazine etc, etc., and then no new gen flat panel radars or IRST.

The raison d'etre of the new AAW destroyer will be defending the carriers, an AAW destroyer does not need any of the T26 gold plating or its expensive HED plus GT propulsion system and that's why advocate T4X based on the IH/T31 if Babcock can deliver, with its diesels giving it faster speed and longer range of ~3,000 nm more than a T26. Should note that the Italian Navy with their full fat variant of the new PPA frigate, similar in size to the IH/T31, will have the systems and new gen GaN flat panel radars plus Aster 30 Block 1NT to take out short range ballistic missiles, but only 16 VLS cells as its a multi-purpose frigate. T4X would be single purpose for AAW, would argue to take out the hanger to make more space for additional VLS cells as did the original Burke Flight I, why the need for helo if escorting carrier, not saying not nice to have but with RN limited funding the aim should be to build for lowest possible cost with first class systems for AAW and the capability with its large number of VLS cells to hopefully fit the FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) and so build more than the six T45s, maybe twelve T4X :)

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1598
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 23 Feb 2020, 12:52

NickC wrote:RN next generation AAW destroyer thoughts, if RN had the funding we could build the equivalent of the new Chinese ~13,000t Type 055s with its 112 VLS cells, but we don't, its being spent on Dreadnought and F-35s, RN surface ships existing on the crumbs left over. We need to take on board the recent lessons from the T26 and T45. T26 planned buy of the T26 cut from thirteen to eight due to the first three T26 costing the Treasury £4 billion, result five T31 only fitted out to OPV standard. The expensive T45 cut from twelve to six, with its next generation propulsion system, GT plus heat exchanger, was a disaster resulting most of T45s life sitting pier side and 100s of millions being spent on re-design and propulsion re-builds.

The above pattern of RN recent history with its new ships shows that the priority is to control costs by not taking gambles on untested new tech as with T45 AAW and no gold plating as happened with the T26 ASW eg expensive 30 m heavy flight deck as stressed to take full weight of a Chinook, large mission bay designed for Amphib and Dfid ops, 5" main gun with expensive automated magazine etc, etc., and then no new gen flat panel radars or IRST.

The raison d'etre of the new AAW destroyer will be defending the carriers, an AAW destroyer does not need any of the T26 gold plating or its expensive HED plus GT propulsion system and that's why advocate T4X based on the IH/T31 if Babcock can deliver, with its diesels giving it faster speed and longer range of ~3,000 nm more than a T26. Should note that the Italian Navy with their full fat variant of the new PPA frigate, similar in size to the IH/T31, will have the systems and new gen GaN flat panel radars plus Aster 30 Block 1NT to take out short range ballistic missiles, but only 16 VLS cells as its a multi-purpose frigate. T4X would be single purpose for AAW, would argue to take out the hanger to make more space for additional VLS cells as did the original Burke Flight I, why the need for helo if escorting carrier, not saying not nice to have but with RN limited funding the aim should be to build for lowest possible cost with first class systems for AAW and the capability with its large number of VLS cells to hopefully fit the FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) and so build more than the six T45s, maybe twelve T4X :)


The T26 numbers were cut due to 2 main reason 1 being the constant delays the other being the rediculse quoted price of £350m per unit, you are never going to get a top tier ASW vessel for £350m in the west. 2 of the T45 numbers were cut because HMG promised jam tomarrow with the T26 but instead cut the defence budget fooling the RN as often happens. Yes the problems with the inter coolers were a cock up but it was a risk of trying to stay on the cutting edge, these risks have to be taken from time to time else you end up being left behind.

The PPA while good vessel with decent AAW are going to be the Italian navy’s AAW vessel they plan to have 10,000 165m long AAW vessel as the recognise the need to the space.

What you are suggesting is using an older smaller design vessel in the hope of getting more not taking in to account the growth of radars or in the increased number of VLS needed to contented with AAW while every other major navy seems to see this need.

The RNs problem has been design 2 complete different vessels for AAW and ASW instead of using a common design fitted out to the different tasks. Having a continued build of the T26 hull to a different variant using the learning curve gained during the build will help keep costs down.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 23 Feb 2020, 13:18

Sounds good but how much cheaper would a non ASW optimised T26 be over an ASW optimised T26?

inch
Member
Posts: 706
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby inch » 23 Feb 2020, 13:28

Not sure, historical the rn will probably arm their future destroyers with the bare minimum of weaponry as per usual ,numbers( callibur /load out ) etc always out gunned/classed quite quickly it's just the bean counters and rn thinking I quess to the very mediocre thinking and understanding of modern politicians ie not arsed

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11706
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Feb 2020, 13:42

NickC wrote: eg expensive 30 m heavy flight deck as stressed to take full weight of a Chinook, large mission bay designed for Amphib and Dfid ops, 5" main gun with expensive automated magazine etc
Agree with all you are saying. Just that these bits were caried over from the Global Cruiser, before the doctrine firmed on the (single) MTF
Jake1992 wrote:The RNs problem has been design 2 complete different vessels for AAW and ASW instead of using a common design fitted out to the different tasks. Having a continued build of the T26 hull to a different variant using the learning curve gained during the build will help keep costs down.
Yes it gets to be expensive doing it the first way in the quote. But the rationale at the time was to have more of ASW units than AAW... as I said upstream: two frigates for the cost of one destroyer
- the threat changed, the thinking got muddled (AKA Global Cruiser) and then the thinking changed again (MTF)
- the best we can make out of this mess is that as the T26 (frigate to cruiser) grew to the T45 dimensions, we can proceed with the build run and modify the superstructure (and add the plug, or not add it. As the functionality will dictate) to be more suitable for AAW. The link to the AB Fl III model, seen from above, and not far upstream, might be a starting point... for producing this 'mongrel'. In concept first; I am pretty sure it has been done already

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 23 Feb 2020, 14:06

Looking around the discussion.

I think, T4X shall better be new design hull. T26 got export means BAES's ship design team is not bad. If UK stop developing new hull, these expertise will disappear. See how USN is confronting big trouble by stop designing new hulls after A.Burk class DDG.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1740
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 23 Feb 2020, 15:42

Since it seems to take a very long time to design a completely new hull, I think it would be better to design the T4x around a modified T26 hull, THEN start on the T2X/ T4X+1 replacement (for sometime in the late 2040s/ early 2050s, by which time I suspect that requirements will be very different).

We should do the same thing with the T31 hull as a cheaper Tier 2 GP/ AAW (possibly ASW and even crossover) platform and the Rivers in the OPV(RN)/corvette (export) role. We don't build enough of each ship to justify a clean-sheet design each time, so each base design should be thoroughly exploited before moving on to the next clean-sheet design.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Feb 2020, 22:26

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think, T4X shall better be new design hull. T26 got export means BAES's ship design team is not bad. If UK stop developing new hull, these expertise will disappear. See how USN is confronting big trouble by stop designing new hulls after A.Burk class DDG.


That is a fine principal but as I have said many times it is not the MoD's role, using tis budget to support and maintain the UK's warship building industry. That is the role of the Department for Trade and Industry or whatever it is called these days. The Government maybe should take a substantial stake in BAe's Ship building arm, part nationalising it and providing investment etc. UK Warship orders are basically starvation rations for the industry and T-26 aside, the market is insufficient to produce a cost effective, viable shipbuilding capacity. The fact that when we do place orders they are artificially stretched out to suit in year funding only makes things worse. And of course industry needs to make a profit and so will try to get as much as possible out of any UK contract. Things have to change before the T-4X programme comes on line or we are not going to get even six to replace the T-45.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 23 Feb 2020, 23:13

The type 26 is the size of an arleigh burke you would think they can fit a few missiles on board. We hear much talk of distributed operations and not placing all your eggs in one basket but proceed to procure exactly the opposite, fewer number of bigger ships with many more missiles costing ever greater sums.

If usvs are predominately in theatre assets then why are we trying to deploy them strategically in a relatively small frigate mission bay. Like with vehicles/logistics or even a/c they can be moved in the same way by the RFA, after all even a lone frigate deployment has a RFA logistics/tanker vessel deployed to give it endurance.

Lord Jim wrote:The fact that when we do place orders they are artificially stretched out to suit in year funding only makes things worse


The MoD have been subject to in year spend for decades if they havent worked out how it works by now there’s no hope regardless of which smart initiative they come up with next (nao banged them over the head every year for it, until they stopped the nao auditing them). In year funding isn’t the issue it’s too many programs being run at the same time. Take programs out frees cash each year no need to delay or reduce numbers in continuing programs because you can’t pay your bills. But as we seen with the review that never was it’s a wee bit difficult and no one wants to take a decision. The questions and answers haven’t changed were just 18 months further dwn the line.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Feb 2020, 04:29

Caribbean wrote:Since it seems to take a very long time to design a completely new hull, I think it would be better to design the T4x around a modified T26 hull, THEN start on the T2X/ T4X+1 replacement (for sometime in the late 2040s/ early 2050s, by which time I suspect that requirements will be very different).
If with significant re-design, this may work for me, as well. "Significant re-design" here means
- broadening the hull
- AND inserting a section
- AND different drivetrain (say, 2 separate shaft-engine room config, as T45 has, but not T26)
Doing all three of this will require all redesign of float/weight balance, drive-train re-configuration, while most of the fluid-dynamics can be "well foreseen" and many of the compartment arrangement can be "re-used".
We should do the same thing with the T31 hull as a cheaper Tier 2 GP/ AAW (possibly ASW and even crossover) platform and the Rivers in the OPV(RN)/corvette (export) role.
I do not think so. T31 is Danish design. If Babcock wants to be an escort designer, they shall design new one. If you mean "significant redesign" based on IH-hull design, I'm not sure Denmark will allow it.

Do you want to allow Australia and Canada to designed there own escort based on T26's design?
We don't build enough of each ship to justify a clean-sheet design each time, so each base design should be thoroughly exploited before moving on to the next clean-sheet design.
Here is the point. N-a-B-san says, 6 per class is the best balance. I agree here. See French navy, they stopped FREMM, in favor of FTI, even though the total cost of 5 FTI program is NOT MUCH DIFFERENT from 5 FREMM. If UK do not newly design T4X, I guess the next T2X will be of imported design = the technology will be lost, exactly as we see in USA.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Feb 2020, 06:34

Lord Jim wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think, T4X shall better be new design hull. T26 got export means BAES's ship design team is not bad. If UK stop developing new hull, these expertise will disappear. See how USN is confronting big trouble by stop designing new hulls after A.Burk class DDG.


That is a fine principal but as I have said many times it is not the MoD's role, using tis budget to support and maintain the UK's warship building industry. That is the role of the Department for Trade and Industry or whatever it is called these days.
May be, or may be not. Looking around the world, it is in many case MOD's budget to pay for the design cost, so I see no big problem here. It is the same for CAMM, F35, MT30 and other UK-based "weapons".
The Government maybe should take a substantial stake in BAe's Ship building arm, part nationalising it and providing investment etc. UK Warship orders are basically starvation rations for the industry and T-26 aside, the market is insufficient to produce a cost effective, viable shipbuilding capacity. The fact that when we do place orders they are artificially stretched out to suit in year funding only makes things worse. And of course industry needs to make a profit and so will try to get as much as possible out of any UK contract. Things have to change before the T-4X programme comes on line or we are not going to get even six to replace the T-45.
"Taking a substantial stake" is one idea, I agree. MOD/RN must stop being irresponsible for such thing by saying "competition is needed". It is directly admitting they cannot do thing other Navy/MOD is doing worldwide. They are fooling themselves by saying so, because it is 100% clear RN is not ordering enough hulls to invoke competition in sustainable basis, anymore.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1740
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 24 Feb 2020, 07:54

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do not think so. T31 is Danish design. If Babcock wants to be an escort designer, they shall design new one. If you mean "significant redesign" based on IH-hull design, I'm not sure Denmark will allow it.

Do you want to allow Australia and Canada to designed there own escort based on T26's design?


Donald-san - according to the Babcock's statement late last year, there are now effectively two designs - the IH and the T31. Babcocks own all the rights to the future development of the T31. OMT still own all the rights to the IH design. They may look (and even be identical), they may even develop identically in the future through design co-operation, but legally, they are separate designs - the IH is effectively no longer relevant in any discussion of the T31 and Babcocks may develop it in any way that they wish (and even go head-to-head with OMT in selling it).

BAE did not sell the IP rights to Australia and Canada, they only licensed the use of the design - Big difference.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 24 Feb 2020, 08:13

Caribbean wrote:Babcocks own all the rights to the future development of the T31.

Where have you seen that please?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 24 Feb 2020, 08:38

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think, T4X shall better be new design hull. T26 got export means BAES's ship design team is not bad. If UK stop developing new hull, these expertise will disappear.


A clean sheet design would be such a waste of money. No company would ever drop a perfectly good product because it didn't generate enough engineering hours. In the real world the reverse is true, and it should be within the MOD too.

And lets be honest, most of the value isn't in the metal bashing bit, its the systems development and integration where the high value lies, and there be loads of systems R&D to turn frigate into a destroyer.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Feb 2020, 11:02

shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think, T4X shall better be new design hull. T26 got export means BAES's ship design team is not bad. If UK stop developing new hull, these expertise will disappear.


A clean sheet design would be such a waste of money. No company would ever drop a perfectly good product because it didn't generate enough engineering hours. In the real world the reverse is true, and it should be within the MOD too.

And lets be honest, most of the value isn't in the metal bashing bit, its the systems development and integration where the high value lies, and there be loads of systems R&D to turn frigate into a destroyer.
Not sure. As you say, systems integration is the most costy part and the new hull is not.

If T26 hull is large enough, you can put your AAW system in the hull. But, it could be, it could be not.

As a "new design", I agree "significantly modified T26" will work well (length and width added), but also a clean sheet design looks OK, simply because you can optimize your hull design following the AAW system requirement.

Meriv9
Member
Posts: 90
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 00:19
Location: Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Meriv9 » 24 Feb 2020, 12:14

Just in case what we think we are going to get at the price of 1bn each is this

Image

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 24 Feb 2020, 12:54

"Only" 48 SAM?

NickC
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 24 Feb 2020, 13:15

Jake1992 wrote:
NickC wrote:RN next generation AAW destroyer thoughts, if RN had the funding we could build the equivalent of the new Chinese ~13,000t Type 055s with its 112 VLS cells, but we don't, its being spent on Dreadnought and F-35s, RN surface ships existing on the crumbs left over. We need to take on board the recent lessons from the T26 and T45. T26 planned buy of the T26 cut from thirteen to eight due to the first three T26 costing the Treasury £4 billion, result five T31 only fitted out to OPV standard. The expensive T45 cut from twelve to six, with its next generation propulsion system, GT plus heat exchanger, was a disaster resulting most of T45s life sitting pier side and 100s of millions being spent on re-design and propulsion re-builds.

The above pattern of RN recent history with its new ships shows that the priority is to control costs by not taking gambles on untested new tech as with T45 AAW and no gold plating as happened with the T26 ASW eg expensive 30 m heavy flight deck as stressed to take full weight of a Chinook, large mission bay designed for Amphib and Dfid ops, 5" main gun with expensive automated magazine etc, etc., and then no new gen flat panel radars or IRST.

The raison d'etre of the new AAW destroyer will be defending the carriers, an AAW destroyer does not need any of the T26 gold plating or its expensive HED plus GT propulsion system and that's why advocate T4X based on the IH/T31 if Babcock can deliver, with its diesels giving it faster speed and longer range of ~3,000 nm more than a T26. Should note that the Italian Navy with their full fat variant of the new PPA frigate, similar in size to the IH/T31, will have the systems and new gen GaN flat panel radars plus Aster 30 Block 1NT to take out short range ballistic missiles, but only 16 VLS cells as its a multi-purpose frigate. T4X would be single purpose for AAW, would argue to take out the hanger to make more space for additional VLS cells as did the original Burke Flight I, why the need for helo if escorting carrier, not saying not nice to have but with RN limited funding the aim should be to build for lowest possible cost with first class systems for AAW and the capability with its large number of VLS cells to hopefully fit the FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) and so build more than the six T45s, maybe twelve T4X :)


The T26 numbers were cut due to 2 main reason 1 being the constant delays the other being the rediculse quoted price of £350m per unit, you are never going to get a top tier ASW vessel for £350m in the west. 2 of the T45 numbers were cut because HMG promised jam tomarrow with the T26 but instead cut the defence budget fooling the RN as often happens. Yes the problems with the inter coolers were a cock up but it was a risk of trying to stay on the cutting edge, these risks have to be taken from time to time else you end up being left behind.

The PPA while good vessel with decent AAW are going to be the Italian navy’s AAW vessel they plan to have 10,000 165m long AAW vessel as the recognise the need to the space.

What you are suggesting is using an older smaller design vessel in the hope of getting more not taking in to account the growth of radars or in the increased number of VLS needed to contented with AAW while every other major navy seems to see this need.

The RNs problem has been design 2 complete different vessels for AAW and ASW instead of using a common design fitted out to the different tasks. Having a continued build of the T26 hull to a different variant using the learning curve gained during the build will help keep costs down.


The Treasury cut the T26 buy from thirteen to eight for one reason only, cost, £4 billion for first three ships, due to MoD/RN near criminal incompetence in letting costs spiral out of control and gold plating the T26. Instead of £350 million per ship its £1.35 billion each for first three ships, no surprise the Treasury wielded the axe.

T45 with its flawed propulsion system said to cost £1 billion each, whereas the tiny Danish Navy managed to build approx three IH for less, though if allow for savings gained from steelwork built in eastern european shipyards and RDN doing the installation of some systems and integration themselves, so might say two IH for the cost of one T45 and they don't spend most of their time tied to pier side as the T45. You could make argument the IH has the better radar system, two bands, the L-band for long range volume search with the SMART-L, and the X-band APAR, with 3,000+ T/R modules in each of its four panel antennas. No doubt if RDN had the funding could buy the SM-6, besides the SM-2 and ESSM.

I'm puzzled on your comment that the IH/T31 is too small to fit new radars, which radars were you thinking of, the latest variant of SMART-L as fitted to IH is the SMART-L MM/N AESA GaN "designed to detect air, surface, and high-speed exo-atmospheric targets out to an instrumented range of 2,000 km, designed to operate in a number of rotating and staring modes to support volume air surveillance and/or BMD long-range search and track"

The IH/T31 "older smaller design vessel" as said is faster and with 40% longer cruise range, fewer crew but much more importantly CHEAPER than the expensive T26, understandable due its requirement for low noise propulsion system, hull etc, HED plus GT, not a requirement for an AAW ship. Re your point on using common hull have seen post by N-a-B, with vast experience in shipyards on SaveTheRoyalNavy, if remembering correctly expressed the view that's a fallacy as it always works out more expensive.

So say again if RN wants more than penny packet numbers of ships they have to be dedicated to control costs, that means single purpose /function ships with no gold plating.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1598
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 Feb 2020, 14:57

NickC wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
NickC wrote:RN next generation AAW destroyer thoughts, if RN had the funding we could build the equivalent of the new Chinese ~13,000t Type 055s with its 112 VLS cells, but we don't, its being spent on Dreadnought and F-35s, RN surface ships existing on the crumbs left over. We need to take on board the recent lessons from the T26 and T45. T26 planned buy of the T26 cut from thirteen to eight due to the first three T26 costing the Treasury £4 billion, result five T31 only fitted out to OPV standard. The expensive T45 cut from twelve to six, with its next generation propulsion system, GT plus heat exchanger, was a disaster resulting most of T45s life sitting pier side and 100s of millions being spent on re-design and propulsion re-builds.

The above pattern of RN recent history with its new ships shows that the priority is to control costs by not taking gambles on untested new tech as with T45 AAW and no gold plating as happened with the T26 ASW eg expensive 30 m heavy flight deck as stressed to take full weight of a Chinook, large mission bay designed for Amphib and Dfid ops, 5" main gun with expensive automated magazine etc, etc., and then no new gen flat panel radars or IRST.

The raison d'etre of the new AAW destroyer will be defending the carriers, an AAW destroyer does not need any of the T26 gold plating or its expensive HED plus GT propulsion system and that's why advocate T4X based on the IH/T31 if Babcock can deliver, with its diesels giving it faster speed and longer range of ~3,000 nm more than a T26. Should note that the Italian Navy with their full fat variant of the new PPA frigate, similar in size to the IH/T31, will have the systems and new gen GaN flat panel radars plus Aster 30 Block 1NT to take out short range ballistic missiles, but only 16 VLS cells as its a multi-purpose frigate. T4X would be single purpose for AAW, would argue to take out the hanger to make more space for additional VLS cells as did the original Burke Flight I, why the need for helo if escorting carrier, not saying not nice to have but with RN limited funding the aim should be to build for lowest possible cost with first class systems for AAW and the capability with its large number of VLS cells to hopefully fit the FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) and so build more than the six T45s, maybe twelve T4X :)


The T26 numbers were cut due to 2 main reason 1 being the constant delays the other being the rediculse quoted price of £350m per unit, you are never going to get a top tier ASW vessel for £350m in the west. 2 of the T45 numbers were cut because HMG promised jam tomarrow with the T26 but instead cut the defence budget fooling the RN as often happens. Yes the problems with the inter coolers were a cock up but it was a risk of trying to stay on the cutting edge, these risks have to be taken from time to time else you end up being left behind.

The PPA while good vessel with decent AAW are going to be the Italian navy’s AAW vessel they plan to have 10,000 165m long AAW vessel as the recognise the need to the space.

What you are suggesting is using an older smaller design vessel in the hope of getting more not taking in to account the growth of radars or in the increased number of VLS needed to contented with AAW while every other major navy seems to see this need.

The RNs problem has been design 2 complete different vessels for AAW and ASW instead of using a common design fitted out to the different tasks. Having a continued build of the T26 hull to a different variant using the learning curve gained during the build will help keep costs down.


The Treasury cut the T26 buy from thirteen to eight for one reason only, cost, £4 billion for first three ships, due to MoD/RN near criminal incompetence in letting costs spiral out of control and gold plating the T26. Instead of £350 million per ship its £1.35 billion each for first three ships, no surprise the Treasury wielded the axe.

T45 with its flawed propulsion system said to cost £1 billion each, whereas the tiny Danish Navy managed to build approx three IH for less, though if allow for savings gained from steelwork built in eastern european shipyards and RDN doing the installation of some systems and integration themselves, so might say two IH for the cost of one T45 and they don't spend most of their time tied to pier side as the T45. You could make argument the IH has the better radar system, two bands, the L-band for long range volume search with the SMART-L, and the X-band APAR, with 3,000+ T/R modules in each of its four panel antennas. No doubt if RDN had the funding could buy the SM-6, besides the SM-2 and ESSM.

I'm puzzled on your comment that the IH/T31 is too small to fit new radars, which radars were you thinking of, the latest variant of SMART-L as fitted to IH is the SMART-L MM/N AESA GaN "designed to detect air, surface, and high-speed exo-atmospheric targets out to an instrumented range of 2,000 km, designed to operate in a number of rotating and staring modes to support volume air surveillance and/or BMD long-range search and track"

The IH/T31 "older smaller design vessel" as said is faster and with 40% longer cruise range, fewer crew but much more importantly CHEAPER than the expensive T26, understandable due its requirement for low noise propulsion system, hull etc, HED plus GT, not a requirement for an AAW ship. Re your point on using common hull have seen post by N-a-B, with vast experience in shipyards on SaveTheRoyalNavy, if remembering correctly expressed the view that's a fallacy as it always works out more expensive.

So say again if RN wants more than penny packet numbers of ships they have to be dedicated to control costs, that means single purpose /function ships with no gold plating.


Yes the T26s were cut due to increase cost but that was more to do with the budget being set at an unrealistic level, who ever in the treasury and MOD believed you could build them for £350m each were fools and who ever told them they could was lying through their teeth.
Even if you got rid of mission bay, Mk41s, 5” gun and shrunk the flight deck you still wouldn’t come close to £350m. No where in any western nation could you build a 1st tier ASW vessel for even close to that money not a chance in hell.
The T26s also won’t cost £1.35bn each, this is for the first 3 which also include long lead items, 3 extra TAS and design costs. The end price will be an average of £1bn each as the program is 8 for £8bn.

As Iv said up thread the T45 engineer debarcal was a cock up but at times you have to take that sort of risk to stay up front in these sort of areas or you get left behind, some times they pay off other times they do you in the arse.
One of the main reasons for the T45s size is to accommodate the much larger radar. Radars have been growing in size and power and this trend is set to continue.
There is a reason every major navy is looking at 10,000t plus designs for there next AAW vessel but your set that a 6,000t design that will be nearing 20 years old by the start of build would be best for the RN.
A few reason for such large vessels being looked at are the ever increasing radar size, ever increasing number of VLS needed, ever increasing power supply needed, the possibility of unmanned system being carried. Once all this is taken in to account there would be no growth room in the IH design.
You also have to remember the IH design is of the same generation as the T45, by the time T4X comes about the Danish will be in the middle of a new design themselves so why would we use they’re old one ?

How is using a common hull more expensive than several different designs ?
What hold platting would using theT26 design give to a T4X ?
I do agree with not using the same engine set up as that long with things like rafting would as you say be hold platting, but a change there does mean the rest of the design would add any gold plating.

serge750
Member
Posts: 483
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 24 Feb 2020, 18:58

would not changing engines add money to the design ? using the same engines and transmissions,,shafts etc aid commonality ? so you do not have to redesign the engine room spaces, uptakes,exhaust etc, but replace the engine rafts etc to save money if possible,

As I am not that clued up on things like this but is there a reason why AAW warfare ships would need different propulsion ?


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eski, Jake1992, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 17 guests