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.
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1641
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Nov 2018, 14:24

NickC wrote:"At 19 ships, compared with 35 in 1997, the Royal Navy’s frigate and destroyer fleet is way below the critical mass required for the many tasks which could confront it." The House of Commons Defence Committee Restoring the Fleet: Naval Procurement and the National Shipbuilding Strategy Third Report of Session 2016–17 Report,15 November 2016
Escort numbers are clearly far too low and a target of around 24 escort/patrol vessels (blue water) looks like an achievable goal.
Something like,
6x T45's
12x ASW Frigates
6x Global Patrol Vessels
Total: 24

Add in,
10x MHC vessels
5x OPV's
Total: 39

Around 40 vessels in total is pretty realistic and affordable in my opinion.
The other main point they made in the report was the RN needed fully capable warships, not a downgraded T31 OPV.
Leander may have OPV heritage via the VT Corvette design but it isn't an OPV.

The Global Patrol Vessels mentioned above could be great assets, even if built within a £250m unit cost. I see these GPV's as being large and versatile vessels with lots of hanger and garage space, a vehicle deck, EMF accommodation for 200+, extensive medical facilities and a flight deck large enough to operate 2 Chinooks simultaneously. True multipurpose vessels with a defensive armament that can be tailored for differing threat environments.
so from cutting first steel to in operational service is 10 years, just pathetic.
Couldn't agree more, it's a joke. How much money is being wasted building them at such a ridiculously slow pace?

As a good comparison, look at what the Italians are aiming to achieve in the next 10 to 15 years. The difference is stark.
Question where does the money come from, so its back to my mantra the T26 is just too costly and class should be terminated after the first three ships as its cost crippling fleet numbers and make a new start, we could all make suggestions and think of what's possible for maybe £400M to £500M ? per ship.
This is the obvious gap in current planning. A class of escorts is planned at £250m and £750m but nothing at £500m. A way must be found to build a Frigate class at around the £500m mark. Ideally I would like to see the T26 hull used.
I don't think it will happen and T26 will carry on soaking up the majority of available funding and the numbers of RN fully capable frigate and destroyer fleet will become ever smaller.
The T26 will certainly carry on and so it should but they are very expensive and a balance has to be found between quality and quantity. This idea that Allies will supply the escorts to protect the CVF's is bonkers and should not be tolerated.

Just my opinion.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 17 Nov 2018, 15:19

If with £1.5B (£1.25B for T31e hulls and £0.25B for related investment): I want to think strategic, for export sales and efficient using of already ordered assets.

- £650M (£750M for hull, -£100M for efficiency saving) to add T26 hull-9. "15 hi-end escort fleet" may work.

- £50M to develop "high-density" packed CAMM. It could be ExLS, or navalised LandCepter (may be adding a door). Anyway it is not for free. To improve CAMM export sales

- And, £90M (+£10M x9 hull) to replace the T26's CAMM VLS with quad-packed ones. Keep the CAMM number to 48, but consume only 1/4 of the deck-space.

- £240M (8 NSM x15 hull x £2M/missile ave) to equip all 6+9 escorts each with 8 NSMs. No SSM capability gap

- £450M (£150M FY2017 procurement cost (*1) x3) for 3 more P-8A, making the fleet to 12 units. Make the fleet efficient, and improve the ASW and surveillance capability overall.

- and remaining £20M for anything else (anyway less than typical estimation error).


*1; https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... eapons.pdf
page 1-14.

NickC
Member
Posts: 525
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 17 Nov 2018, 15:38

A fully capable light frigate, what one of the most efficient shipyards in world can build for £220M, need an expert in Korean military affairs to confirm what is included in price and if any GFE, but makes the Leander look totally outclassed/overpriced and the T31 rationale as basis for export look very limited.

Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co., the world's second largest shipbuilder 14th November won a US$577M / £440M - (£220M per ship) to build two guided Daegu-class (FFX II) frigates for the South Korean Navy, delivery by 2022. The vessels use CODLOG HED, hybrid electric drive with two 1.7MW shaft mounted DRS electric motors for low noise ASW platform powered by two MTU DG's and a RR MT30, same propulsion design as used by T23/ T26, though T26 has 4 DG's.

DRS speaking at US Surface Navy Association Annual Symposium, ‘In hybrid designs, what a lot of navies are now doing with their frigates, is putting an electric motor on the shaft and still keeping the gas turbine, or possibly diesel engine,’ he said. ‘That way they can use the gas turbine for full power, “fight or flight,” either on its own or additive with the electric motor. Or they can use the electric motor only, if they are going for fuel savings. Or, more importantly for frigates these days, they can use the electric motor for submarine hunting. 'You couldn’t go full speed with that,’ he acknowledged. ‘Typically you rate it up to about 17 or 18 knots. But that’s all you need when you are doing submarine hunting.’ He noted that the shaft-mounted electric motor (1.7MW) design is currently used on the Korean FFX-II frigate.

Displacement: 2,800 t (empty), 3,592t (full load); Length: 122 m (400 ft); Beam: 14 m (46 ft); Draft: 4 m (13 ft)
CODLOG - 2 × MTU 12V 1163 TB83 diesel engine 3.6MW; 1 x Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbine; 30 knots; cruise18 knots; Range: 4,500 nm; Complement: 140
Armament: 1 × 5 inch Mk-45 Mod 4 (127mm/L62) ; 1 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS; 2 × 3 K745 LW Blue Shark torpedoes
Missiles: 16 cell K-VLS; Haegung K-SAAM (4 per cell); Haeseong Tactical Land Attack Missiles (vertical launch); Hong Sang Eo anti-submarine missiles; 2 × 4 SSM-700K Haeseong anti-ship missiles
Aircraft carried: Super Lynx or AW159
LIG Nex1 SLQ-200(V)K Sonata EWS; SLQ-261K torpedo acoustic counter measures; MASS decoy launchers
SPS-550K air search 3D radar; SPG-540K fire control radar; SQS-240K hull-mounted sonar;SQR-220KA1 TAS; SAQ-540K EOTS; Hanwha Systems IRSTs; Naval Shield Integrated CMS
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1641
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Nov 2018, 16:00

It's an impressive vessel but I think the CoG might be a bit on the high side with the 14m beam.

Also, the price comparison is interesting but it is not directly comparable to how RN procurement costs are calculated and therefore Leander at £250m.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 17 Nov 2018, 16:29

Caribbean wrote:A50 VLS? That implies Aster 15/30 (doubt you want VL Mica or Crotale ), which brings the need for PAAMS, Sampson and the S1850 with it (though the UK implementation may work without the S1850, IIRC). Probably better to go for the "Self-defence" Mk41 (roughly the same dimensions as A50), to allow quad-packing CAMM and access to the much larger range of Mk41 compatible missiles.


MBDA have said they can quad pack CAMM into A50 VLS I would take this road as type 45 would do the same with it already installed units

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1638
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 17 Nov 2018, 17:24

Tempest414 wrote:MBDA have said they can quad pack CAMM into A50 VLS I would take this road as type 45 would do the same with it already installed units

I'm still not sure I see the logic. The T45 already has Sylver VLS, so adding more of the same is logical. (Maybe even a block of A70, for SCALP Naval). The T26 is being built with Mk41, so it would seem more logical to stay with more Mk41, since CAMM can be quad-packed in them as well (or even EXLS)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3382
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 17 Nov 2018, 23:40

Maximising the VLS on both the T-45 and T-26 should be a priority to give the maximum flexibility and capability to these platforms. With, I believe, ExLS being able to be used on both these and also in the stand alone three cell launchers that should be installed on the T-31e, we have one launch systems for Sea Ceptor across the escort fleet and the stand alone is the ideal option for larger RN platforms going forward.

The T-26 is too far advanced to kill off totally but people are right in that the RN has done it again in its pursuit of its "only the best will do", policy. It should have learnt from the Carrier programme and realised with current and planned funding a platform of the size and cost of the T-26 was not going to be afford able in the numbers needed to even maintain escort numbers let alone increase them. This is made worse by the decades spent/wasted by the MoD assessing the various option under the FSC programme in its various guises. The lack of secure funding for the programme certainly didn't help, but many other nations seems to be able to run efficient naval ship building programmes on smaller budgets than the UK seems to be capable of.

If it were an option I would stop the T-26 programme at six. I would same time look to build six "Son of T-23", ASW escorts with the remaining funding and that of the T-31e programme giving the RN twelve true ASW escorts, with the T-26 able to conduct more varied operations if required. This at least would be a start in the renewal of the RN.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10628
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Nov 2018, 05:25

Lord Jim wrote:If it were an option I would stop the T-26 programme at six.


Only three of them have gone through the main gate. To follow the 'train of thought'
-12 AAW down to 6
- 8 ASW down(?) to 6
- 5 GP??? up, to 7 Truly general purpose by being configurable (at least at build): Patrol, (littoral) ASW, globally deployable MCM

Once the AAW ships (far out) get renewed, the end result?
= the whole escort fleet (19) on two hulls

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2251
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 18 Nov 2018, 08:34

Lord Jim wrote:Maximising the VLS on both the T-45 and T-26 should be a priority to give the maximum flexibility and capability to these platforms. With, I believe, ExLS being able to be used on both these and also in the stand alone three cell launchers that should be installed on the T-31e, we have one launch systems for Sea Ceptor across the escort fleet and the stand alone is the ideal option for larger RN platforms going forward.

The T-26 is too far advanced to kill off totally but people are right in that the RN has done it again in its pursuit of its "only the best will do", policy. It should have learnt from the Carrier programme and realised with current and planned funding a platform of the size and cost of the T-26 was not going to be afford able in the numbers needed to even maintain escort numbers let alone increase them. This is made worse by the decades spent/wasted by the MoD assessing the various option under the FSC programme in its various guises. The lack of secure funding for the programme certainly didn't help, but many other nations seems to be able to run efficient naval ship building programmes on smaller budgets than the UK seems to be capable of.

If it were an option I would stop the T-26 programme at six. I would same time look to build six "Son of T-23", ASW escorts with the remaining funding and that of the T-31e programme giving the RN twelve true ASW escorts, with the T-26 able to conduct more varied operations if required. This at least would be a start in the renewal of the RN.


Good proposal.
Ok, so, that's about 2 x 800 mil. GBP saved. With 1,25 bln. pounds from Type 31 that's 2,85, let's say 3 bln. So, for a 6 Type 31, that's 500 mil. per ship.
If we take T31 hull as given, what could they get for 250 mil. extra? Towed sonar (that's say 50 mil.), Mk41 VLS (that's about 25 mil.), 10 ASROCs (say additional 30-40 mil.), 10 NSMs (say 30 mil.). That's about 140-150 mil. per ship.
Leaves about 100 mil. to be used for equipping Type 26 better, let's say ASROCs (30-40 mil.) and NSMs (30 mil.) with 30-40 mil. to spare for something else. Maybe for adding ExLS on Type 45, I don't know what's the cost...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1921
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 18 Nov 2018, 08:52

I’m hoping that the MDP will divert more funds for a larger global RN footprint and less on a small BEF style continental Army, which would free up more funds for warships. Though I’m probably a hopeless dreamer and in any case our thinking has to move on from the way the RN has operated in the past 40+ years.

My view is that the RN needs to compliment its close interoperability with the USN with a close partnership with Canada, Australia and NZ to support regional commitments where virtually all (if not all) of our interests are aligned.

The T26 is the catalyst and enabler for this opportunity and should be grabbed with both hands.

With the RAN, RNZN and RCN adding @30 FFs/DDs to a combined escort fleet, then thinking globally having weak forward based T31e makes zero sense. Adding 9-10 T26s and 6 T45s to this and we are close to a significant 50 ship fleet.

Organised into standing groups around a CVF or LHD with RN ships forward based sharing common T26 maintenance facilities (and vice versa other nations basing ships in RN bases) then a truly global reach could be constructed to the benefit of all nations.

I’d also argue the UK joint funding and manning RNZN T26s is also a good idea.

By doing this the RN can maximise the effectiveness of its spend, I would though couple with another 3 “B3” Rivers to support WIGS, FIGS & GiGS.

To support UK ship building I’d be building a couple of DfID funded hospital ships, 3 FSSs, 3 “mini” San Giorgio style LHDs (as described before) and looking at a longer term MCHP ship to replace the MCMs/Survey Ships/OPVs.

Medium term I’d also be looking to do something similar with Japan and India.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Nov 2018, 09:00

Lord Jim wrote:If it were an option I would stop the T-26 programme at six. I would same time look to build six "Son of T-23", ASW escorts with the remaining funding and that of the T-31e programme giving the RN twelve true ASW escorts, with the T-26 able to conduct more varied operations if required. This at least would be a start in the renewal of the RN.


But this is what i have been saying make type 31 a ASW that can work with the carrier group and free up the Type 26's for as you put it more varied operations . As I have said before this can be done by a 1 billion pound uplift in the the budget or by a 250 million pound uplift and cutting one type 26.

for me the question is if we were to build 5 Carrier group capable ASW frigates there by freeing up the 7 or 8 type 26's how would use them for me I would go with

2 x TAPS

1 x Asian - Pacific along with a type 26 form both Australia and Canada to form a Commonwealth standing group in the the region that could be joined by a Canberra class amphib group or the UK carrier group from time to time

the rest to be tasked as seen fit

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1641
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 18 Nov 2018, 09:15

Lord Jim wrote:If it were an option I would stop the T-26 programme at six. I would same time look to build six "Son of T-23", ASW escorts with the remaining funding and that of the T-31e programme giving the RN twelve true ASW escorts, with the T-26 able to conduct more varied operations if required. This at least would be a start in the renewal of the RN.
Sounds good to me.
I would suggest a 'Son of T23' would look something like this,

Length: 135m
Beam: 18m
Displacement: ~5500t
Top Speed: 28knots+
Range: 7500nm
Mk45
36x CAMM
16x Mk41
8x Harpoon or equivalent
2x 30mm's
1x Phalanx
Artisan
2150 & 2087
Acoustically quiet hull and double Merlin hanger or combined hanger/misson space.

Clearly this would be a very capable Frigate and would give the UK a viable option in the export market for countries that can't quite stretch to the T26. Ideally I would like to see the UK's Tier2 Frigate built on the T26 hull but the easiest way to build a vessel such as described above would be to go with something like a Venator 125.
abc123 wrote:If we take T31 hull as given
Which one? Leander?

Simply bolting all the bells and whistles onto something like Leander or Arrowhead 120/140 isn't going to make a 'Son of T23'. It would need to be based on an acoustically quiet hull with hybrid propulsion to begin with.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2251
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 18 Nov 2018, 09:30

Poiuytrewq wrote:
abc123 wrote:If we take T31 hull as given
Which one? Leander?

Simply bolting all the bells and whistles onto something like Leander or Arrowhead 120/140 isn't going to make a 'Son of T23'. It would need to be based on an acoustically quiet hull with hybrid propulsion to begin with.


Yep, Leander.
I agree, but you do have to save money somewhere. Also, the idea was to make Leander more capable, not as a replacement for Type 26, that train passed long time ago.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1394
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 18 Nov 2018, 09:47

abc123 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
abc123 wrote:If we take T31 hull as given
Which one? Leander?

Simply bolting all the bells and whistles onto something like Leander or Arrowhead 120/140 isn't going to make a 'Son of T23'. It would need to be based on an acoustically quiet hull with hybrid propulsion to begin with.


Yep, Leander.
I agree, but you do have to save money somewhere. Also, the idea was to make Leander more capable, not as a replacement for Type 26, that train passed long time ago.


Surely the big problem here is that it is pretty much politically impossible for HMG to cut the T26 numbers that the RAN and RCN have ordered in the numbers they have, it is already kind of embarrassing for them having the smallest order of the 3 on there own product but to cut it further would be a massive own goal, it would also put a big question over future exports of the T26 as other would be asking well why is the RN cutting its order.

I agree a son of T23 in the £500m range is needed in place of the T31 but I can only see this happening if more funded become available due to politics

albedo
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby albedo » 18 Nov 2018, 10:00

Jake1992 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:I agree a son of T23 in the £500m range is needed in place of the T31 but I can only see this happening if more funded become available due to politics


I'm just an interested but ignorant civilian here, but if more money were to become available wouldn't it be better spent on better terms and conditions for the sailors, at least in the short to medium term? Seems like we have perfectly competent ships simply tied up at present due to lack of crew, especially of certain specialist crew members.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2251
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 18 Nov 2018, 10:07

albedo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:I agree a son of T23 in the £500m range is needed in place of the T31 but I can only see this happening if more funded become available due to politics


I'm just an interested but ignorant civilian here, but if more money were to become available wouldn't it be better spent on better terms and conditions for the sailors, at least in the short to medium term? Seems like we have perfectly competent ships simply tied up at present due to lack of crew, especially of certain specialist crew members.


Hmm, I would agree, but I think that what disduades people from RN is more general feeling of decay and general disinterest of HMG about defence- who want's to join ever shrinking navy where you will have tremble every 2 years when new MDP is initiated and budget cut? And in meantime, be on 10 months deployments, because HMG decided that 13 frigates is more than enough?

Not just pay or food or accomodation... And if anything, food and accomodation are good- at least on new ships...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

NickC
Member
Posts: 525
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 18 Nov 2018, 11:57

abc123 wrote:Yep, Leander.
I agree, but you do have to save money somewhere. Also, the idea was to make Leander more capable, not as a replacement for Type 26, that train passed long time ago.


"make Leander more capable"

Definition of "RN capable".

According to Sir Mark Stanhope "anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and close range sonar as two capabilities which he believed would be absent. He said that: Modern day ASW is about silent platforms. Silent platforms cost and, quite clearly, in cost terms, the general purpose frigate will be nothing like that”. So Leander will not be a capable ASW frigate.

Area AAW defence with Aster 30 or SM-2 missiles, I don't think that's envisaged, so will not be a capable AAW frigate.

A modern destroyer using AShM missiles instead of torpedoes. delete mission bay and to keep cost down fit 16 deck canister launchers for missiles as less expensive than VLS cells. The problem with all the OTH missiles is targeting, helicopters are a single source of failure, and will show up on any decent radar and have limited operational hours, a possibility may be expendable UAVs with passive IR/ESM, will need several as passive to triangulate target position, using an active radar would be just a red flag to enemy ESM.

Any other thoughts for missions that the RN may need for a 'capable' Leander, none come to mind as NGFS not a high priority, even 5" Mk 45 is marginal in that role, the BAOR used min battery size of 8 x 155mm canon with 11 x firepower of a single Mk45 plus massive supply of shells whereas ships magazine is limited, 200 hundred?

serge750
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 18 Nov 2018, 12:01

Well I like the idea of a son of T23 out of the T31 program just for ASW carrier duties freeing up the T26 for global roles ( might be a good export ship if it is done right ) I just think it would be better to cut the number ( unless an increase in budget is forthcoming ) of T31 to 3 so it is equipt better or just build bactch 3 river class to keep the numbers up & just use them for local duties, Europe, escorting Russian ships through the channel etc

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 18 Nov 2018, 12:17

serge750 wrote:Well I like the idea of a son of T23 out of the T31 program just for ASW carrier duties freeing up the T26 for global roles ( might be a good export ship if it is done right ) I just think it would be better to cut the number ( unless an increase in budget is forthcoming ) of T31 to 3 so it is equipt better or just build bactch 3 river class to keep the numbers up & just use them for local duties, Europe, escorting Russian ships through the channel etc


Well we may get 2 sub classes within the batch if 5 perhaps? Two el cheapo (the first 2, keeping them simple to allow learning from the build etc) followed by 3 more expensive and capable variants. Possible?

tomuk
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 18 Nov 2018, 19:57

So what is the difference between Type 26 and 'Son of Type 23'? From what has been described not a lot. At least not enough to free up enough money to build it. My ideal fleet would be based on the following:

MPHC - VENARI-85 to replace all minehunters, hydrograpic ships and opvs - Babcock Appledore
Type 31 - VENATOR-110 Light Frigate - Cammel Laird Liverpool
Type 26 - As proposed - Type 45 to be eventually replaced using same hull. - BAE Scotstoun

Type 26/Type45/Type31 to have Mk41 plus box launched NSM. No 'mushroom' launchers.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1641
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 18 Nov 2018, 20:10

tomuk wrote:So what is the difference between Type 26 and 'Son of Type 23'?
Probably about £250m....

tomuk
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 18 Nov 2018, 20:16

Poiuytrewq wrote:Probably about £250m....

On what basis? The specs proposed seem to be the same apart from 1500 odd tons displacement which is the cheap bit. Kit seems to be the same quiet hull and vds.

serge750
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 18 Nov 2018, 20:26

Sounds as though it is shorter slimmer aswell as less displacement maybe less crew, no mission bay slightly less weapons, the T26 appears imo to be a swing role Global combat ship specialised for ASW as it's primary mission, I suspose the son of T23 is ASW without the swing role capability...personaly I don't think it would save lots of build costs (10%) maybe less to run being smaller/less crew ( which was the plan of T31,but nowhere near enough for the MOD ) but would free up the T26 for Global missions.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 18 Nov 2018, 21:02

serge750 wrote:personaly I don't think it would save lots of build costs (10%)

If its only going to a bit cheaper just buy more Type 26s which would reduce the costs anyway.

serge750
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 18 Nov 2018, 21:11

Running costs over the life of the smaller platform would be a lot less than a T26 though which is what the MOD would want...


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests