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.
serge750
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 24 Apr 2019, 21:16

Yeh I think you are right, thanks, something about it being Quad packed ? will have to go back & try to find it, would be interesting to see how much in would cost for intergration compared to the ExLS system

I think the ExLS launcher suggestion was in addition to the 48 Aster missiles though, which would be better.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1430
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 25 Apr 2019, 09:22

donald_of_tokyo wrote:SeaRAM is completely a different class of weapons compared to Phalanx CIWS. It is somewhere in-between CAMM and CIWS. I'm afraid buying SeaRAM will mean completely omitting CAMM from T31e. So, "5 T31 with only SeaRAM and no CAMM", or "5 T31 with CAMM and CIWS FTR", will be the answer, I guess.




I don't think anyone said T-31 would be fitted with Sea Ram so how did you get form buying 10 SeaRam unit for the two carriers one LPD and RFA fleet in order to increase these ships self defence and free up 10 Phalanx for the escort fleet too completely omitting CAMM from T-31

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 25 Apr 2019, 11:03

My point is, SeaRAM is a complex and expensive bit, so buying 10 of them, including logistics and training, will cost RN to sacrifice the 5 CAMM systems which could be onboard the 5 T31.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 25 Apr 2019, 11:30

And, I prefer 5 T31 with CAMM than 10 SeaRAM in CVF and LPDs because CAMM is a local area air defence system, capable to defend other ships (say Points and MHCs, for example), while SeaRAM as a point defense system cannot (or at least not good at).

Also it is from UK.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1430
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 25 Apr 2019, 11:44

The opening point made by (Jake 1992) was that due to T-23 not having Phalanx when we move over to T-26 and T-31 we may need more Phalanx systems as the T-26's will be fitted with two so if 4 are deployed at sea or ready they will need 8 units and the T-31 if three ship are deployed will need 3 meaning 11 units in use over and above what is used today. We have some 50 units and the list of ships that will use them are

Carriers up to 4 each = 8
T-45 2 each = 12
T-26 2 each = 16
T-31 1 each = 5
LPD 2 each =4
Bay class 2 each = 6
Tide class 2 each = 8
SSS could have 2 each = 4 to 6

Total 61 to 63 units

Now we know not all will be used at the same time but will 50 be enough

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 25 Apr 2019, 12:19

Tempest414 wrote:Carriers up to 4 each = 8
T-45 2 each = 12
T-26 2 each = 16
T-31 1 each = 5
LPD 2 each =4
Bay class 2 each = 6
Tide class 2 each = 8
SSS could have 2 each = 4 to 6

Total 61 to 63 units

Now we know not all will be used at the same time but will 50 be enough
Thanks.

But, I do not think we need to buy many of them.

- T31e if armed with CAMM and 57mm gun and 2x 30mm guns, do not need 20mm CIWS. (-5)
- Only 1 LPD will be active at any moment, because of crew shortage. (-2)
- At most, only 2 Bays will need CIWS. (-2)
So, out of 63 units, what we need is only 54.

Also, significant fraction of those assets are in long maintenance. I understand "in-maintenance ratio" of vessels (guess 20-30%) is higher than "in-maintenance ratio" of CIWSs (may be 10%?). So, at least in theory, 50 CIWS is right enough.

And, of course, if a few (3 or 5?) more CIWSs are needed, just buy them. They are substantially cheaper than SeaRAM, even excluding the logistic costs.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3585
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Apr 2019, 12:33

Can some one explain to me why the Government did not provide a list of Government Furnished Equipment, that would be provided to the bidders for the T-31e, and instead they were given a list of kit they could buy. The T-23s have been flogged to death and they are not going to be that attractive to foreign navies when they retire as they will require extensive refits and modernisation, unlike previous RN escorts that were retired early. Surely provide five sets of GFE form the five GP T-23s would allow the T-31e to be given increased capability whilst staying within their budget. The bidders would have to use the kit offered, and so could opt for a second hand OTO76, as the installation would be cheaper compared to integrating a Mk8, or at least I believe it would be.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 25 Apr 2019, 12:52

Lord Jim wrote:Can some one explain to me why the Government did not provide a list of Government Furnished Equipment, that would be provided to the bidders for the T-31e, and instead they were given a list of kit they could buy.
They did.

"Basically nothing" is the answer.

"Minimum GFE" is repeatedly stated in ALL T31e documents to date. See also the 2nd-SL's comment. So, it is clear.
The T-23s have been flogged to death and they are not going to be that attractive to foreign navies when they retire as they will require extensive refits and modernisation, unlike previous RN escorts that were retired early. Surely provide five sets of GFE form the five GP T-23s would allow the T-31e to be given increased capability whilst staying within their budget. The bidders would have to use the kit offered, and so could opt for a second hand OTO76, as the installation would be cheaper compared to integrating a Mk8, or at least I believe it would be.
As you said, whether it is clever or not is a good point do discuss. I can understand your point.

But, MOD's idea is also clear. T31e puts ALL RISKS to the builder, and nothing to MOD. It is a fixed price contract, with very minimum of requirements, so that the bidders are even buying foreign origin design. Babcock is even using TACTICOS CMS. Big freedom, we see. I guess this is the trial for "industry lead ship building".

Personally, I only see negative things here. It may work (hopefully 30% probability), it may not work (70% probability? Reminds me of T21). But, anyway, it will either

1: successfully deliver good light frigates to RN and for export.
or
2: clearly show that, "every escorts in BAES Clyde" concept was the only right answer.

I am a supporter of "2". If the cost is too high, it is RN/MOD's inability to control BAE. All other nations are trying hard for it. For me, it is very ridiculous saying "competition solves everything". No it doesn't. Precisely speaking, if RN are to build 100 corvettes, instead of 2 CV and 19 escorts, it will surely work. You can buy 10 Vosper corvettes and 10 Yarrow corvettes, and based on their cost and performance, buy 20 more Vosper and 5 more Yarrow's. With the "5 more order" Yarrow will survive and try harder in the next turn, and may win in future.

This is how the competition works.

It is not valid in this "19 escorts" era. Simple.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5864
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 25 Apr 2019, 13:02

Lord Jim wrote:why the Government did not provide a list of Government Furnished Equipment

Donald sans already gives a good answer, and I'd like to add another point.

If there was lots of free GFE why are 66% of the bidders proposing new alternative equipment? Either they like smaller profit margins, or there is no free GFE.

Lord Jim wrote: The T-23s have been flogged to death and they are not going to be that attractive to foreign navies

Yes they are old, and they are well looked after. They have new combat systems, new propulsion, and older Ex-RN ships are still in service. Sales may be possible.
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3585
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Apr 2019, 18:23

What a wonderful idea, let use over 25% of the RN's planned Escort strength as an experiment to see if industry will take up all the risks and deliver a viable "Escort" within a set budget that has no margin for inflation so they better build them quick to meet only the minimum requirement if they want to make any profit at all.

As for allowing a second source of Escorts to be set up as per the NSS, again we expect Industry to burden the load entirely with no promise of further work in the future. This sounds like a great plan and I am sure the result will be the RN receiving five, cheap planforms where everything else was sacrificed to say within the fix price contract. A clear example to be included in text books of "You get what you pay for"!

Hopefully the bids submitted will cause such consternation amongst the RN's Top Brass, when they see what these five "Escort" bring, or more aptly do not bring to the table, that they go back, with the MoD Civil Servants in tow, to the Government and say this ain't going to work, please can we have a couple more T-26 and accept the reduction in numbers for now.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1430
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 25 Apr 2019, 18:55

Like very MOD program T-31 will rise in cost to 300 to 320 million each as the Navy add what they need to make these ships work for HMG's ever growing deployment wish list

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Apr 2019, 14:25

Lord Jim wrote:What a wonderful idea, let use over 25% of the RN's planned Escort strength as an experiment to see if industry will take up all the risks and deliver a viable "Escort" within a set budget that has no margin for inflation so they better build them quick to meet only the minimum requirement if they want to make any profit at all.
No problem. T31e cost is 1.5B GBP (1.25B build and 0.25B "other"), which is equivalent to 2 T26 unit cost. So, MOD only has money for 6 T45 and 8+2 = 10 T26 = 16 "full-fat" escorts, and investing money only equivalent to 2. In other words, only 12.5%. In other words, "19" escorts are already just an illusion. I understand this is because of T26 so high spec = costy. (If T26 was as low spec as FREMM, we should have got 13 of them, and not "T31e" will be there.)
Hopefully the bids submitted will cause such consternation amongst the RN's Top Brass, when they see what these five "Escort" bring, or more aptly do not bring to the table, that they go back, with the MoD Civil Servants in tow, to the Government and say this ain't going to work, please can we have a couple more T-26 and accept the reduction in numbers for now.
As I am saying many times, it is critically important to shift the key decision point of T31e AFTER SDSR2020.

Looking at the "Type 31e frigate approximate timeline:" from NavyLookout's tweet,
> Q4 2019 - winning bid to be announced.
> Q2 2020 - First steel cut.
> 2023 - First ship in service.

In other words, T31e must be delayed by at least 2 years.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 26 Apr 2019, 14:46

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Q4 2019 - winning bid to be announced.
This was supposed to be after the autumn spending review had been completed. Due to the Brexit stalemate it's likley the spending review will be pushed back so I think it's highly likley that the T31 timescale will slip further unless the political situation rapidly stabilises and at present there appears to be little sign of that.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11086
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Apr 2019, 01:14

Lord Jim wrote:cheap planforms where everything else was sacrificed to say within the fix price contract


The quote is twisting your words, so apologies ahead of time, but it serves the truth 'on a plate':
- we still haven't furnished the carriers with their main weapon system... and that is not CAMM :lol:
- everything else (boats exempt) was sacrificed just to get the carriers (as platforms)

... simple as that.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3585
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Apr 2019, 02:51

And that goes across all three services though the Army has got little out of it, partly to fund the major projects of the other two services and party due to its inability to decide what it wants.

The NSS needs to be torn up and the decision made to double down on the T-26, especially after it won two competitions. The reason for the T-31e is no longer there except to retain the magical number "Nineteen". To facilitate this the Treasury needs to take funding from the DTI or whatever that department is now called and use it to help BAe build the fabled "Frigate Factory", needed to sustain a long term building programme. This in turn should allow the cost of further T-26s to come down over time and allow the programme to accelerate after the first three boats are built.

I still think we should build the first three as originally designed. The next five should remove the mushroom launchers and at least one more Mk41, although I think we should only fit two "Strike" length version to each ship across all batches. Can anyone see us loading even sixteen TLAMs or SM-3/6 onto a T-26!

By the time we are building the second batch we will have a pretty good idea of what works, what doesn't and what else is needed regarding the T-26, and these changes would lead to the third batch, initially two but hopefully more.

Of course money is the key to all this and additional funding beyond the DTI investment in BAE is going to be needed. The funding allocated for the T-31e will get things rolling, as would selling or scrapping the five GP T-23s by the end of 2020, though the former would generate more cash. Even binning the FLSS should be considered, as though this is a great headline maker, its true contribution to existing commitments the RN is already stretched to meet would be far less than conventional warships.

All three of the UKs Armed Services need to look at their core commitments and make sure they are capable to achieving these in the most effective manner with the right equipment and with sufficient personnel, before they start looking for additional roles around the Globe. This means in a nutshell the UK must focus on the defence of UK territory and NATO before anything else. The Middle and Far East can be looked at when the Defence Budget grows to a level that it can support such aspirations.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1430
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 27 Apr 2019, 09:53

Lord Jim wrote:The NSS needs to be torn up and the decision made to double down on the T-26, especially after it won two competitions. The reason for the T-31e is no longer there except to retain the magical number "Nineteen". To facilitate this the Treasury needs to take funding from the DTI or whatever that department is now called and use it to help BAe build the fabled "Frigate Factory", needed to sustain a long term building programme. This in turn should allow the cost of further T-26s to come down over time and allow the programme to accelerate after the first three boats are built.


No British government is going to put money into a escort factory ( I think we need to stop calling it a frigate factory as this site will need to build the T-45 replacement after T-26) until the Scottish question is sorted

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1430
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 27 Apr 2019, 12:26

For me people on here are giving T-31 to much of a hard time its only problem is the silly price cap this for me is where the like of BAE/CL and Team-31 should be pushing there designs to show what could be done with a proper budget. If we take Leander as our template what could be done.

120 meters long
Crew 110
top speed 27 knots
Artisan radar
BAE CMS
Hull mounted sonar
CAPTAS-4 ci
Hangar and flight deck for Merlin
Mission bay

Armament
1 x contractor refurbished Mk-8 gun
2 x 30mm
The 2 CAMM tubes removed and three 3 cell EXLS fitted for 36 CAMM
1 x Phalanx
8 x ASM ( Maybe something like RB-15 with a 200km land attack capability )
2 x triple torpedo tube

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 27 Apr 2019, 12:32

Tempest414 wrote:No British government is going to put money into a escort factory ( I think we need to stop calling it a frigate factory as this site will need to build the T-45 replacement after T-26) until the Scottish question is sorted
BAE will build the Frigate factory at Scotstoun if HMG order enough T26's. Simple.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3585
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Apr 2019, 12:42

Of course the T-31e could be made more capable if the budget was increased, but I would still rather see two extra T-26 and then see what is left over.

The MoD often get bad press these days for not supporting UK industries. Well if BAe built a Warship Factory with financial help form the DTI, the MoD would be happy to place orders to take advantage of any economies of scale and accelerated build times. In return a large number of jobs are created for highly skilled personnel, not just at BAe but in the small and medium companies that would support the Yard. So if the Government took a holistic approach and looks at the big picture, it may see the real benefit for pursuing this option.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 27 Apr 2019, 12:59

T31e idea is the clearly negative output of the strong "anti-BAE" campaign. Blaming BAE for high cost is no problem, but looking for "competition" as an answer is just stupid. It is clearly un-practical. This campaign just made the things worse and worse.

In place, RN/MOD must have been growing a team of engineer within themselves, to be able to "fight" with BAES to control the cost. (This includes pointing out "too expensive" options, and "slightly relax too strict requirement, when it is technically too difficult". ) Spending 100M GBP to "educate" this team must be more effective than trying for vague "competition", which is not practical quite clearly.

As T31e program has gone to this end, however, we shall think of good way to "close" it. May be, selecting Leander, but requiring less specification (make it "Floral-like") and reduce number (5 hull -->3 hull), and add one more T26 while "forcing" BAES to include Camell Laired in the production line, will be better. (but I need more consideration here).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3585
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Apr 2019, 15:13

The whole T-31e was a reasonable idea but made unrealistic by the low fixed price, just so the Politicians could say we were retaining numbers and may increase them. IT should be binned before any more money is spent, and two additional T-26 ordered, with BAe being told to find ways to cut costs overall, even is that means faster build time, with the MoD/Treasury having to accept possible greater up front costs.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 27 Apr 2019, 15:14

From T26 thread...

Jake1992 wrote:For me the lay out of the front it quiet flexible allowing space for up to 48 mk41s or other VLS or canister systems. I’d also like to keep the bridge and superstructure lay out pretty much the same on all to reduce redesign and help it commonality for the crews.

With regards to the width I’d keep it the same to once again reduce redesign and keep growth margins for weapons and other system. Yes this would reduce speed but I’d be confident in getting 25/26 knots top speed out of such a design ( I know T26 is stated at 26 knot but as we’ve seen with the QEs 25 knots yet they hit 29 already so I could see the T26 hitting around 30knots )
If you start changing the width then it’s a whole sale new design really.
I understood your point, and just pointing out that, your plan itself is already not much different from "a whole sale new design".

Consider the center of gravity, total float, and the hydro-dynamical hull form. For example, forward and stern section is NOT generating many floats, but the hull center is the key. And you are cutting there and at the same time keep the forward section "the same". Clearly it is very very difficult.

On the speed, RN requirement is in specified sea state and in full load. It does not contradict with QNLZ achieving 29knots in calm water, not some T23 achieving more than 30 knots but still stated as 27+ knots. Thus, the top speed in "RN definition" will be clearly reduced.

But, I think this is rather detailed issue. I just claim the "shorter version" will be expensive to design, while the longer version is much easy, and not against 3 design concept itself.

Thanks.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 27 Apr 2019, 15:22

Lord Jim wrote:The whole T-31e was a reasonable idea but made unrealistic by the low fixed price, ...
Not sure. It is not only the T31 program cost, but also the whole cost to "grow the second escort builder", which will be needed to "realize" NSbS concept.

To keep Clyde, RN is assigning 8 T26 and 6 T45-replacements. In other words, 14 escorts. If to be disbanded in 28 years young, it means 2 years drumbeat. Even not enough to keep it "efficient".

Similarly, for the "second ship builder", RN must assign at least 14 T31, 32 (or 33) series, just to keep it running. So, it is not 1.25B GBP for 5 hulls, but continuous investment of more than 3 times of that cost over ~30 years for ever. Of course, if you want T31e to be more "reliable escort", at least twice this money will be needed.

So, it is 8B GBP over 30 years to be invested on this "second ship builder", in addition to the 16B GBP over 30 years for the "1st builder", while accepting very low and inefficient build rate in BOTH "1st and 2nd builders".

[EDIT] Here we assume all escorts can be replaced in 28 years, which is clearly optimistic. We will not be surprised to see T45 or T26 used until 35 years old. USN is even planning to use their AEGIS DDG/CCG for nearly 50 years. In other words, "assigning 14 hulls" to a ship yard can result in a drumbeat of "1 ship per 3 years", very very slow and inefficient.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3585
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Apr 2019, 15:28

Why don't we do like the Italians are doing with their light frigate and have three versions of the T-26 with a common hull, those being Light, Light + and full. There is more to it obviously but maybe that is the way forward. The first three would be Light + by the way.

What should be the key priority for the MoD and Government is getting the best Escorts for the best price in the most time efficient manner. So if that mean throwing the NSbS out the window and doubling down on BAe then fine. Lets have a T-26 in the water every eighteen months starting in 2024 and continuing for at least twenty seven years.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 27 Apr 2019, 15:32

donald_of_tokyo wrote:From T26 thread...

Jake1992 wrote:For me the lay out of the front it quiet flexible allowing space for up to 48 mk41s or other VLS or canister systems. I’d also like to keep the bridge and superstructure lay out pretty much the same on all to reduce redesign and help it commonality for the crews.

With regards to the width I’d keep it the same to once again reduce redesign and keep growth margins for weapons and other system. Yes this would reduce speed but I’d be confident in getting 25/26 knots top speed out of such a design ( I know T26 is stated at 26 knot but as we’ve seen with the QEs 25 knots yet they hit 29 already so I could see the T26 hitting around 30knots )
If you start changing the width then it’s a whole sale new design really.
I understood your point, and just pointing out that, your plan itself is already not much different from "a whole sale new design".

Consider the center of gravity, total float, and the hydro-dynamical hull form. For example, forward and stern section is NOT generating many floats, but the hull center is the key. And you are cutting there and at the same time keep the forward section "the same".

On the speed, RN requirement is in specified sea state and in full load. It does not contradict with QNLZ achieving 29knots in calm water, not some T23 achieving more than 30 knots but still stated as 27+ knots. Thus, the top speed in "RN definition" will be clearly reduced.

But, I think this is rather detailed issue. I just claim the "shorter version" will be expensive to design, while the longer version is much easy, and not against 3 design concept itself.

Thanks.


I cant argue with anything you’ve said here Donald but I do think it wouldn’t be quiet as extensive as changing the width which in turn changing the bridge set and impacts future growth margins.

I just believe going down this route of 3 variation based on the T26 as a parent design would give much greater opportunity for BAE and the MOD RN than a stretched OPV/Covert or a foreign design


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests