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
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12152
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Feb 2020, 10:30

Tempest414 wrote:from our comfy seats
What :shock: ?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1648
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 26 Feb 2020, 10:48

Lord Jim wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:It also worth noting that when we there think we know better the RN has been in the game of naval warfare for nearly 500 years and have fort and won naval battle all over the world


And during that time they have often got ship design and the capability priorities wrong. A clear example is with regards to AA capability leading up to and in the early stages of WWII. Even though they armoured ships against the airborne threat knowing they would be operating within the range of land based aircraft, all RN ship had woefully inadequate AA until much later in the war. Even the prime AA weapon, the 2pdr Pom Pom was found to be ineffective and on the case of the 8 barrelled versions massively over complicated and expensive to boot.

So yes the RN has a wealth of experience, but that doesn't mean that what they ask for is always what they should or actually need. The Global Combat Ship was a fine idea, but the budget was totally out of sync and has produced a platform that is really more than the RN needs and as a result of its increased costs has led to a reduction in the fleet.

The MoD as a whole, not just the RN needs to adjust its expectations ad aspirations to the resources it is likely to have. This is going to be the core of the ongoing SDSR. The RN is locked into the first three T-26 and the five T-31, but after that nothing is certain. There is very little likelihood the MoD is going to get any additional resources above the current level. The Equipment Programme has around £1Bn a year hole that has failed to be filled by "Efficiencies", and will have to be dealt with. Politically I doubt the Government will allow the Escort fleet to drop below nineteen, but with resources within the budget inevitably being spread thinner and thinner by the need to provide areas such as Cyber with greater resources, and "Security" coming to prominence once again, whether the funding for the remaining five T-26 is safe is far from certain.


I see this quiet abit from some on here saying that the budget rise of the T26 is the cause of the low numbers but please tell me does anyone really believe you can build a first rate ASW vessel in the west for £350m ?
Even if you strip away the mission bay, the 5” gun, the Mk41s and shrink the flight deck do you or anyone else really believe you’d get even a second rate ASW vessel let alone a first rate one for £350m in the west ?

If not ( which I believe is the case ) then the problem hasn’t been so much that the T26s costs rose but more the fact that some idiots in both the treasury and MOD brought the pack of lies that it could be done for £350m each so set the budget to this and then were shock that it increased.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 26 Feb 2020, 12:45

Jake1992 wrote:If not ( which I believe is the case ) then the problem hasn’t been so much that the T26s costs rose but more the fact that some idiots in both the treasury and MOD brought the pack of lies that it could be done for £350m each so set the budget to this and then were shock that it increased.


This is a very good point and it has happened again with type 31 with a stated price of 250 million which has now been blown I have said for over year that type 31 would end up costing 320 to 350 million and should have 400 million per ship half that of a type 26

looking back it was said in 2015 that the program cost for 13 type 26 was set to be 11.5 billion so that would have made each type 26 £884.5 million each

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 26 Feb 2020, 13:02

T26 Gold Plating costs that results in trade offs such as only twelve SeaCeptor missiles on T31

September 2013 royalnavy.mod.uk PR "LATEST LOOK AT NAVY’S FUTURE FRIGATES AS TYPE 26 DESIGN NEARS COMPLETION" "The Type 26 will be slightly longer than the Duke-class they replace (148m to 133m) and slightly heavier (5,400 tonnes to 4,900)"

UKDJ "The original working model for the ship put the length at 141 metres long and gave a displacement close to 7,000 tonnes. In late 2010 it was reported that the specifications had been reduced in order to bring down the cost from £500m to £250-350m per ship. By 2011 new specification details began to emerge of a 5,400 tonne ship emphasising flexibility and modularity. The new design is 149m long, has a top speed of more than 26 knots and accommodation for up to 200 people. It is expected to have 60 days endurance and have a range of 7,000 miles at 15 knots."


A) When MoD/RN writing the above PR was it incompetence or deliberate fiction to mislead Treasury on actual T26 displacement, by quoting apples to oranges figures, the 5,400 tonnes quoted for the T26 appears to be light displacement compared to the T23 4,900 tonnes, full load displacement.

B) Question what was the main driver that subsequently transformed the T26 from 5,400 light tonnes ship to current 6,900 light tonnes (8,000 tonnes full load), a 28% increase, MoD/RN must have known that costs would further increase over budget. When BAE refined the T26 design to meet the final MoD/RN wish list for the gold plating required for Amphib and Dfid ops, resulted in an additional increase of 1,500 tonnes in displacement, its Chinook 30 m flight deck, the large mission and boat bays so as to be able to fit four 12 m RHIBs or eleven 20 feet containers, additional accommodation for ~50 special ops, fitting large automated main gun magazine (Hobarts 3x MK45 cost $66 million, T26 3x Mk 45 with the automated magazine cost $245 million) etc.

When question asked in Parliament as to build cost of T26 the joke answer was somewhere between £500 million and a billion.

PS Would have liked to seen a Chinook 30m and 30 tonnes MTOW land and take off from a 75m castle class OPV :clap:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Feb 2020, 13:22

Tempest414 wrote:Then it must say something about what the Navy wanted first and for most as they pick it over Leander and the A 200 offering

It also worth noting that when we there think we know better the RN has been in the game of naval warfare for nearly 500 years and have fort and won naval battle all over the world

With this being said I would still like to see what the A 200 would have looked like in type 31 form as they were given 5 million and not so much as a GCI to show for it
?? I'm not arguing Leander or MEKOA200 is "better" than Arrowhead 140. Navy opted for larger hull, and I think it directly means less armament. When you "gold plate" (= go more than required) in some field, you need to pay for it by losing other issues.

For example, T26 itself is OK, but as it is gold plated, reduced number must have been accepted. Not saying the design is good nor bad.

If you select Leander, I would say, Navy opted for British design. But it will surely confront other difficulties. Making a real frigate out of Al Khareef design, significantly stretching the hull, will not be easy. With MEKO A100+/A200, I have no idea. But, MEKO 200 did not get good partnership in UK. So, their losing is reasonable. Actually, I was opting for Leander, the reason of which is simple it is of BAE design, and the "2nd escort builder cannot be supported" issue may not come out. Very industrial point of view, not the ship design.
Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is. I'm not surprised to hear, because of the big hull, RN were forced to reduce CAMM from 24 to 12, to save money.


So you are now saying that if we had gone Leander we would of had 24 CAMM because it was smaller any proof of this or is this just blue sky thinking
No, I did not said so. But, complaining "6000t large ship having so low level of equipment" to Arrowhead 140 is completely pointless, I will say. If Leander had 12 CAMM, it is OK. It is just a long-range heavy corvette. As T31 IS BUDGETED AS A LONG RANGE HEAVY CORVETTE, it is very normal.

# If Babcock selected MEKOA200, it would have been a bit heavier armament, I guess. Proven design as a (light-)frigate (the same to Arrowhead 140), famous for cheap building, and matches very well with the requirement.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1648
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 26 Feb 2020, 13:42

Once again I see gold plating being thrown around beside the chinook flight deck and the auto mag for the 5” what else is “gold plating” ?

The mission bay is more future proofing for potential unmanned ASW systems.
The 24 Mk41 is style less than most tier one escorts.
The radar is not top class radar.
The hanger is only merlin capable ie needed.
And all the quieting measure are needed for ASW.

So please tell me what cost would you be looking at to build a tier one ASW vessel in the west when you get rid of the auto mag ( or even whole 5” ) and reduce the flight deck to merlin instead of chinook ?

The simple fact is the MOD ( most likely lead by the treasury ) budgeted for a less than FTI style vessel or one built in to Far East and not what was needed then play dumb and shocked when they couldn’t get it for that price.

All you have to do is look around the western world at tier one escorts to see what they are equipped with and what they cost and you’ll see the T26 is not out there on cost. Also take in to account that nations like France and Italy have much more efficient ship building industries as much as 15-20% more efficient.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Feb 2020, 13:51

Jake1992 wrote:Once again I see gold plating being thrown around beside the chinook flight deck and the auto mag for the 5” what else is “gold plating” ?

The mission bay is more future proofing for potential unmanned ASW systems.
The 24 Mk41 is style less than most tier one escorts.
The radar is not top class radar.
The hanger is only merlin capable ie needed.
And all the quieting measure are needed for ASW.

So please tell me what cost would you be looking at to build a tier one ASW vessel in the west when you get rid of the auto mag ( or even whole 5” ) and reduce the flight deck to merlin instead of chinook ?
French FREMM do not have good NGFS capability. Italian FREMM ASW, JMSDF Murasame, Canadian Halifax class, neither. Spanish Bazan class has a 5 inch gun, but I guess their 5in gun arsenal is not large.

Also, none of them have Chinook capable flight deck.

Mission bay is for future proof, many of the other 1st tier escort (regretively) omitted in view of waiting for future. (There are 2nd-Tier escorts with mission bay, actually).

These 3 parts can be happily called "gold plated".

But, if this is useless or not? I think (again and again saying) it is useful. So, having them is OK. But, RN must have accepted the reduction in number of escorts because they spend their money on these "gold plating".
The simple fact is the MOD ( most likely lead by the treasury ) budgeted for a less than FTI style vessel or one built in to Far East and not what was needed then play dumb and shocked when they couldn’t get it for that price.

All you have to do is look around the western world at tier one escorts to see what they are equipped with and what they cost and you’ll see the T26 is not out there on cost. Also take in to account that nations like France and Italy have much more efficient ship building industries as much as 15-20% more efficient.
This part, no objection at all.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1648
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 26 Feb 2020, 14:01

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Once again I see gold plating being thrown around beside the chinook flight deck and the auto mag for the 5” what else is “gold plating” ?

The mission bay is more future proofing for potential unmanned ASW systems.
The 24 Mk41 is style less than most tier one escorts.
The radar is not top class radar.
The hanger is only merlin capable ie needed.
And all the quieting measure are needed for ASW.

So please tell me what cost would you be looking at to build a tier one ASW vessel in the west when you get rid of the auto mag ( or even whole 5” ) and reduce the flight deck to merlin instead of chinook ?
French FREMM do not have good NGFS capability. Italian FREMM ASW, JMSDF Murasame, Canadian Halifax class, neither. Spanish Bazan class has a 5 inch gun, but I guess their 5in gun arsenal is not large.

Also, none of them have Chinook capable flight deck.

Mission bay is for future proof, many of the other 1st tier escort (regretively) omitted in view of waiting for future. (There are 2nd-Tier escorts with mission bay, actually).

These 3 parts can be happily called "gold plated".

But, if this is useless or not? I think (again and again saying) it is useful. So, having them is OK. But, RN must have accepted the reduction in number of escorts because they spend their money on these "gold plating".
The simple fact is the MOD ( most likely lead by the treasury ) budgeted for a less than FTI style vessel or one built in to Far East and not what was needed then play dumb and shocked when they couldn’t get it for that price.

All you have to do is look around the western world at tier one escorts to see what they are equipped with and what they cost and you’ll see the T26 is not out there on cost. Also take in to account that nations like France and Italy have much more efficient ship building industries as much as 15-20% more efficient.
This part, no objection at all.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Once again I see gold plating being thrown around beside the chinook flight deck and the auto mag for the 5” what else is “gold plating” ?

The mission bay is more future proofing for potential unmanned ASW systems.
The 24 Mk41 is style less than most tier one escorts.
The radar is not top class radar.
The hanger is only merlin capable ie needed.
And all the quieting measure are needed for ASW.

So please tell me what cost would you be looking at to build a tier one ASW vessel in the west when you get rid of the auto mag ( or even whole 5” ) and reduce the flight deck to merlin instead of chinook ?
French FREMM do not have good NGFS capability. Italian FREMM ASW, JMSDF Murasame, Canadian Halifax class, neither. Spanish Bazan class has a 5 inch gun, but I guess their 5in gun arsenal is not large.

Also, none of them have Chinook capable flight deck.

Mission bay is for future proof, many of the other 1st tier escort (regretively) omitted in view of waiting for future. (There are 2nd-Tier escorts with mission bay, actually).

These 3 parts can be happily called "gold plated".

But, if this is useless or not? I think (again and again saying) it is useful. So, having them is OK. But, RN must have accepted the reduction in number of escorts because they spend their money on these "gold plating".
The simple fact is the MOD ( most likely lead by the treasury ) budgeted for a less than FTI style vessel or one built in to Far East and not what was needed then play dumb and shocked when they couldn’t get it for that price.

All you have to do is look around the western world at tier one escorts to see what they are equipped with and what they cost and you’ll see the T26 is not out there on cost. Also take in to account that nations like France and Italy have much more efficient ship building industries as much as 15-20% more efficient.
This part, no objection at all.


Like I said the large auto mag and chinook flight deck are what you’d call gold plating, I don’t agree that the mission bay is remember the T26 is a good bit newer than the Fremm design so could very well of learnt from them.

My point being though people keep saying if it wasn’t for the gold plating we’d have 13 but are you really going to tell me that these 2 items would of meant an extra 5 vessel ? I don’t buy that one bit.

When you look at other tier one escorts around the world then taking in to account the uk ship build inefficient of 15-20% compared to others all of a sudden the T26 starts to look comparable in price.
So if the T26 is comparable in price to other western built tier one escorts it’s not really gold plating that has caused the reduction in number but more the fact that the budget wasn’t set for 13 tier one escorts in the first place.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4138
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 26 Feb 2020, 15:39

With the T-26, I feel the RN got its priorities slightly confused. To say the design is "Gold Plated" may be true in some areas but in others it is below par compared to escorts being built for other navies. Of the three T-26 designs we are ending up with probably the least capable and being built in the fewest numbers, yet we will still end up paying around £1Bn per ship with the cost spread over the eight we are hopefully buying.

As a North Atlantic ASW platform its weapon suite is probably acceptable, though the lack of a AShM from the outset and lack of information on what the RN is looking at to fill those 24 Mk41 VLS cells means it only is just so. However in such a role the cost of the Mk45 "Auto Mag" is money poorly spent unless you intend to get into gun battles with other surface ships. As a Global Combat Ship its weapon suite is seriously underwhelming, for the same reasons as above. The Mission Bay does give the vessel a certain level of future proofing, but for how long will we see them only carrying a number of RHIBs rather than the equipment needed to properly exploit the bay.

The T-26 could be a world beater for the RN if its full capabilities were realised, but will the RN actually do this or will we end up with a variation of the old FFBNW dance. Personally I think the RN has got the wrong platform for what it really needed. As I mentioned the idea behind the GCS was fine but those who did the costings were criminally inept. then we have the situation where the eight we are hopefully going to get, will be used almost exclusively as ASW platforms to protect the Carrier(s) and CASD. We could probably have gotten away with a smaller platform with a similar sensor/electronics suite, smaller calibre Main Gun, same number of Sea Ceptor and a hanger and flight deck for a Merlin, say a T-23 2.0. Would we have gotten the export orders? probably not but the Rn would most likely have gotten more and faster and there should have been no need for the T-31 or B2 Rivers.

The whole Future Surface Combatant programme that led to the T-26 has been as poorly a led programme as FRES ever was and just as costly. Project teams were constantly forms, disbanded after a period of time to only be immediately reformed under a different name and often with the same people, making the same mistakes. The starvation level funding for the programme at times only made things worse.

But we are where we are, and we have to just hope that the Rn does actually get the eight ships promised, and that they have a pretty fair idea of where they want to take the class and its capabilities and the funding is there to meet this.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2601
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 26 Feb 2020, 16:04

It was fine for the intention. ie - A powerful ASW ship that had global deployment in mind for when it's not on ASW or carrier tasking.

Then as ever, the Governments cut cut cut, and suddenly the 13 ships that would have seen a large class deployment able to have said ships rotating between all duties got reduced to 8...right after the Destroyers went from 12 to 8, then 8 to 6.

End result, the Type 26 ended up with not enough numbers to exploit its capability, and not enough funding to properly fit it out to do it either for the era it is delayed to launch in.

In short: Not enough, and too late.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 26 Feb 2020, 16:39

Lord Jim wrote:The MoD as a whole, not just the RN needs to adjust its expectations ad aspirations to the resources it is likely to have.
Hold that thought.... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... es-review/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... nding.html

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1328
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 26 Feb 2020, 16:56

NickC wrote:PS Would have liked to seen a Chinook 30m and 30 tonnes MTOW land and take off from a 75m castle class OPV


HMS Leeds Castle

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdyhwPMU0AAKHMo.jpg:large

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 26 Feb 2020, 17:04

Thinking about yardstick to compare to T26, as always apples to oranges as not totally same, maybe most appropriate comparison is with the new Spanish F110 ASW frigate, total contract €4,317/~£3,650 million (dev €1,638 / ~£1,400 million and understand includes the cost of dev the new radars, build €2,679, €536 /~£450 million build cost per ship)

Understand spec as follows ~6,100t /145m x 18.6m, quiet HED propulsion system, DGs and electric motors look like mirror image of T26 fit, only difference using LM2500 GT instead of MT30, same sonar system as T26 CAPTAS4 compact and UMS4110 HMS, new gen AESA-GaN radars, S and X band, sixteen Mk 41 VLS cells for SM-2 and ESSMs, Leonardo 127 mm main gun, eight deck canister launchers for anti-ship missiles, two CIWS/cannon, LWTs, mission and boat bay, flight deck/hanger for the SH-60 or NH-90.

F110s vs T26s, F110 new gen radars, longer range AA missiles, LWTs, only minus eight fewer VLS cells though offset by eight deck canister launchers and flight deck not sized for a Chinook :)

Five F110s for cost of three T26s, with F110 Spanish Navy gains additional two thirds operational capability compared to the RN T26 for same budget?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 26 Feb 2020, 17:55

what are they giving up to get them at that cost we have seen this before as well there LHD only cost 450 million however the RAN need to do more work which added cost

inch
Member
Posts: 723
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby inch » 26 Feb 2020, 22:01

Makes you wonder but suppose Canada and Australia still went for t26 design so can't be that bad even if with there own version

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4138
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Feb 2020, 05:50

I think the T-26 is a good design, but the UK is under utilising it whereas the Canadians and particularly the Australians are getting far more out of the platform as current the relevant designs currently stand. Of course a lot will depend on what the UK eventually puts into the Mk41s. Using the "Mushrooms", is still a mistake as far as I am concerned, it might have saved a small amount but adopting the three cell stand alone ExLS would have allowed at least a 50% increase in the Sea Ceptor Load out using the same space. Its adoption would also have allowed the T-31 to be fitted to carry more Sea Ceptor easily when required, with say the ship plumed in for two to three but only having one installed routinely giving a load out of between twelve and thirty six. The ExLS could have been pooled and issued as required, dependant on mission. The T-45 could also have be similarly fitted out whilst going through the engine mod, with pluming in place for up to four between the existing Sylver silos.

With ExLS cleared for Sea Ceptor, both in tis stand alone and insert versions, and it being designed from the outset for simple integration into existing ships, it would have given the RN an increased AAW capability in a cost effective manner.

As for the reports that the Government might be considering an increase in spending, well given the scope of the review is being expanded the budget is going to be spread over more departments including the Home Office so I cannot see spending on actual Defence going above the current 2% of GDP even though that is supposed to be the minimum no a benchmark to be proud of.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1808
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 27 Feb 2020, 07:29

Jake1992 wrote:more the fact that the budget wasn’t set for 13 tier one escorts in the first place.

Well, the original budget was announced (or was it "leaked") as £13.4b, which sounds like a suitable budget for 13 ships.

Then we had to pay for 5 unneeded OPVs (£635m), followed by Gideon, I think it was, removing c. £750m because he wanted to save some money, so all of a sudden the budget wasn't big enough to cover 13 ships at £1b per. Still around £12b, so it was announced that 8 T26 would be built for £8.4b, leaving £3.6b, of which £1.25b was allocated to the T31, another £250m to "non-platform related costs" and, most recently another £450m has apparently been added to the T31 budget to allegedly cover GFX (£110m per ship should be easily enough for 24 CAMM and a modest ASW suite, so I suspect that this also covers initial maintenance, training, spares and a number of years of operation as per "normal" pricing).

That leaves around £1.6b in the budget, by my (probably not too accurate) estimation. So, there is some money around, perhaps some of that will be saved for a second batch of T31 (assuming batch 1 comes in on budget), or maybe an extra T26 AND a T31 (9+6 seems quite a decent target), or perhaps it'll be spent on autonomous off-board systems, but since, at this point, the money is just a budget line, not available money, no-one is going to make any promises.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 27 Feb 2020, 07:48

Caribbean wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:more the fact that the budget wasn’t set for 13 tier one escorts in the first place.

Well, the original budget was announced (or was it "leaked") as £13.4b, which sounds like a suitable budget for 13 ships.
Interesting, where does this information came from?

When T26 program cost was leaked to be "nearly 12B GBP" by RN official, it was with a big surprise, as I remember. The number was suddenly modified as "much near to 11.5B GBP". I guess it was showing big mismatch between the originally allocated money and the money turned out to be needed, as the design gets matured.

Right after this issue, suddenly the T26 hull numbers were cut to 8, and 5 cheap T31.

I understand the initial budget allocated for the 13 T23 replacement was much small, say ~9.5B, and with "11.5B GBP" coming out as the "real money needed", then all the countermeasure came out.

I'm assuming it was 9.5B GBP or so, with 8B GBP now for 8 T26 and 1.5B GBP originally for 5 T31 (now increase to be 2B GBP). I really think, it must have been 10 T26 with 9.5B GBP, with "3 escorts gapped". Increased number with the same timeframe means faster = efficient build, resulting in cheaper unit cost.

If the 0.5B GBP added to T31 is there, even making it 11 T26 should have been possible. If it is now 8 in 2 years drumbeat (=16 years), 10 would have meant 1.6 years drumbeat, and it with 11, it will be 1.45 years drumbeat. As fast as French Naval yards build pace.

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 27 Feb 2020, 12:54

SW1 wrote:
NickC wrote:PS Would have liked to seen a Chinook 30m and 30 tonnes MTOW land and take off from a 75m castle class OPV


HMS Leeds Castle

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdyhwPMU0AAKHMo.jpg:large


Thank for your pic.

The T26 flight deck will be 50% larger than T23 as longer and wider, ~30m length, ~600 sq mtrs, ~ 5m longer than a T23, ~400 sq mtrs flight deck, said additional 200 sq mtrs needed to accommodate Chinook, wonder why if the 150m/8,000t T26 beam at 20.8m is 9.3m wider than the 75m/1,400t Leeds Castle which could land a Chinook :angel:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

S M H
Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby S M H » 27 Feb 2020, 19:34

NickC wrote:wonder why if the 150m/8,000t T26 beam at 20.8m is 9.3m wider than the 75m/1,400t Leeds Castle which could land a Chinook
The castle class had nearly vertical side plating from transom to round bilge knuckle on the hull. Given the hull profiles with the modern practice of radar reduction hull forms. One would presume that the aft plating would be wider at deck level and narrower at water line. The hull profile reduces the radar return. Given the beam of the hull the transom is not excessive when considering the type 26s size.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2601
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 27 Feb 2020, 19:57

Image
Italy launching their first Corvette for Qatar. A mini-FREMM basically.

A much more sensible way to keep shipyards going. Nail export orders for various classes rather than relying on huge ticket self orders alone. Why can France and Italy build in proper schedules? Because of this sort of thing.

Course, you actually need to bother supporting your industry for that to happen. We all know Boris and co aren't interested in that.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12152
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Feb 2020, 20:12

Impressive looks, but compare the price to our T-31s, [according to defencenews] "The four corvettes and the support ship would cost 3.9 billion euros and the two missile boats one billion euros"

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 27 Feb 2020, 21:47

this is the point had bae systems put the effort in to Leander design following on from Khareef class it might of been in with a shout of this contract

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2601
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 27 Feb 2020, 22:31

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Impressive looks, but compare the price to our T-31s, [according to defencenews] "The four corvettes and the support ship would cost 3.9 billion euros and the two missile boats one billion euros"

I don't mean for us to use. I'm meaning having exports. France and Italy's shipbuilding is so much healthier because they aren't "eggs in one basket" and target a variety of levels, and countries that DON'T build in their own homes. This helps fill gaps between their own projects, develops technology, derisks it.
Tempest414 wrote:this is the point had bae systems put the effort in to Leander design following on from Khareef class it might of been in with a shout of this contract

Bingo. Although you need government aid to do that (pursuing exports for you by linking into trade deals etc).

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 27 Feb 2020, 23:58

And bribes. Lots of bribes.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests