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
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 07 May 2019, 15:57

shark bait wrote:@Donald, in many coastal environments a variable depth sonar, like CAPTAS-2, is unusable. Likewise passive detection in this environment is almost impossible. A solution often applied in these environments is a powerful active hull sonar pared with a simple towed array.
Not sure. For example, Swedish and Finnish "ASW" sonar for shallow water SSK hunting are VDS. River water flows "above" the sea water, and tide mixes it all. Because the reflection/transmission of sonar sound is very complicated there, I think VDS is very important asset.

Also, it means they are operating the VDS in such a shallow water. So, why not CAPTAS-2?
The Royal Netherlands Navy use something very similar to the above, I will try and find the article that explains some of the choices. From memory the towed array is often cheaper to purchase, and simpler to operate than a VDS, both features that are important for controlling life time costs. At the same time performance whilst using active sonar is as good as a VDS.
They are using VDS+TASS, independently towed, similar to CAPTAS4 and 4CI (but with much compact VDS fish). See Image

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2839
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 07 May 2019, 17:52

There are some very capable and extremely compact VDS out there. Remember the Russian equip a large number of their coastal craft with VDS which in their case are variants of helicopter dipping sonars. The same goes for the Swedes who have followed the same principal. These are very useful in coastal waters where a platform moves to a location, goes quiets and uses its VDS, listens then moves to another location and repeats. These VDS often also have an active mode just like some Helicopter dipping sonars.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 07 May 2019, 18:41

MoD 'to scrap cut-price frigates plan' after fears ships would not be able to protect themselves

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... -250m-per/

According the the Telegraph, the T-31 looks likely to be getting the bin...

Can't see the rest behind the subscription wall sadly.

Anyone who can fill in?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5089
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SKB » 07 May 2019, 19:07

Until the MoD/HMGov say the same, its just newspaper speculation.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1424
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 07 May 2019, 19:11

Nope - not getting binned - just that GFE is not now included in the £250m (that was known some months ago, though the language in the statement was, admittedly, opaque) and HMG is taking on some of the financial risk around inflation and exchange rates.
So now it's been acknowledged that sensors, existing weapons systems, comms etc, etc could all transfer, or be provided new in addition to the £250m cap.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

cyrilranch
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby cyrilranch » 07 May 2019, 20:11

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:MoD 'to scrap cut-price frigates plan' after fears ships would not be able to protect themselves

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... -250m-per/

According the the Telegraph, the T-31 looks likely to be getting the bin...

Can't see the rest behind the subscription wall sadly.

Anyone who can fill in?

Hopes of bolstering the Royal Navy with a fleet of five “bargain” frigates at an all-in cost of £250m per vessel have foundered after the Ministry of Defence conceded the ships could not be delivered at that price.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy unveiled in 2017 floated the concept of a new class of budget warship that would support the UK’s shipbuilding sector by spreading work around yards, along with breaking BAE Systems' near-monopoly.

Named the Type 31e - with the “e” denoting it was for export - the new ships were priced at a point that would be attractive to export customers, with a tight deadline of the first one going into service in 2023.

However, Whitehall and industry sources have confirmed the £250m target has now effectively been abandoned after warnings that a viable vessel could not be built at the price.

It is understood that what the MoD terms “government-furnished equipment” - thought to cover items including weapons and sophisticated software - will now not be included in the costing.

The MoD is also taking on more financial risk related to the project, such as foreign exchange movements and inflation pushing up the cost for bidders.

“The parameters have changed,” said one Whitehall insider. “We’re reverting back to a more normal form of procurement.”

al experts raised concerns that at £250m the ships could be under-armed and not able to protect themselves, making them a liability rather than an asset to the Navy.

The first tender to build the Type 31e was halted last summer, with the MoD saying that there were “insufficient compliant bids”.

It is now understood that industry concerns about how capable a vessel could be delivered under the price cap was part of the reason the original competition was scrapped.

Bidders for the Type 31e include a partnership of BAE Systems and Cammell Laird, and groups led by Babcock and Thales, as well as one bid headed by Atlas Electronik UK.

“At £250m for everything, it was a very big risk for industry to take on,” said one industry source involved in the bidding. “The basic cost of £250m for a ship hasn’t changed, but now some equipment won’t be included in that price. Financial conditions around the contract such as inflation and currency risk have also been altered.”

Defence analyst Howard Wheeldon described the development as “good news for the Navy”. He added: “It sounds like a way forward for the Type 31e has been found, paving the way for the Navy to get the ships it needs.”

An MoD spokesman said: “The preferred bidder for the design and manufacture of the ships will be announced by December 2019, and we intend to purchase five ships at an average production cost of £250m per ship.”

Double post looks as someone has already posted on the Type 23 thread.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 07 May 2019, 20:32

So if GFE is no longer to be included in the £250m unit price what can we expect to get ?

Will we be looking at something more along the lines of a £300m vessel equivalent or more ?

Will this still be enough to produce a decent second tier vessel that would be at least no million miles from a GP T23 ?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2839
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 07 May 2019, 20:46

Well I suppose it depends on how much GFE is available. If they stripped the five T-23s of everything that was still viable, especially if they had been through the refresh it would provide everything from Artisan to Torpedo tubes. We shall have to wait and see.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1628
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 07 May 2019, 20:54

shark bait wrote:if needed come also from reducing the T31 to 4 units.


But what’s the real gain of doing this?
- From memory I think @Donald-san said a while ago that the overhead of a new class in terms of fix costs is x hulls - if complex its 2-3 if simple its 1. So if we assume the T31e is simple that means that that without overheads, based on £1.25bn, the unit cost for 5 hulls is @£210mn, for 4 hulls it would be £250mn a “real” increase in budget of £40mn per hull - not much is going to change for that.
- a 4 ship is an expensive dead end both for the shipyard (not much hope for follow on orders) and for the RN (increased support and maintenance costs)
"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

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1628
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 07 May 2019, 21:01

I guess the Telegraph article is good news in that it confirms that there is an acknowledgment that the current plan is flawed - just doesn’t feel enough to make a significant difference.

Also, how much would be the net difference between transferring the kit vs selling on the current ships (to Brazil or Chile) fully equipped and buying new kit?
"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

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10028
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 May 2019, 22:06

cyrilranch wrote:It is understood that what the MoD terms “government-furnished equipment” - thought to cover items including weapons and sophisticated software - will now not be included in the costing.
We knew this all along; tilts the table in one direction
cyrilranch wrote:a partnership of BAE Systems and Cammell Laird, and groups led by Babcock and Thales, as well as one bid headed by Atlas Electronik UK.
and then again, taking FX risk away tilts the tables more, the further down the list you go
... and the net of those two announced changes is :D as for each of the three?
cyrilranch wrote:The preferred bidder for the design and manufacture of the ships will be announced by December 2019

All my life been waiting for Xmas; not again!

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1427
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 08 May 2019, 09:02

Repulse wrote:But what’s the real gain of doing this?
Could it be that HMG has now concluded that dropping to 14 credible escorts isn't acceptable regardless of how many patrol vessels are constructed to fill the gaps?

The problem with the T31 programme is that the more you increase the budget the less sense it makes to actually continue with it. If the UPC of each T31 reaches the £400m credible Frigate ballpark then the programme makes almost no sense at all. Much better to invest in the frigate factory and try and squeeze out three or possibly four basic T26's.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3475
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 08 May 2019, 09:16

Poiuytrewq wrote:Much better to invest in the frigate factory


Small point but this "factory" is just a large shed where the ships can be fully built out of the (Scottish) rain. As it stands they will be assembled out in the elements. Calling it a "factory" is just your usual political spin.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3475
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 08 May 2019, 09:22

ArmChairCivvy wrote:We knew this all along; tilts the table in one direction


No "we" didn't. As recently as last month the MoD were saying that GFE was to be included.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:and then again, taking FX risk away tilts the tables more, the further down the list you go
... and the net of those two announced changes is :D as for each of the three?


For a UK ship stuffed with UK systems i.e. Leander, FX risk is already kinda small. Now A140 is in a totally different situation with all its foreign kit.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:All my life been waiting for Xmas; not again!


Bet you a zillion that it won't be this Xmas. Maybe the one after.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5670
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 08 May 2019, 09:51

donald_of_tokyo wrote:They are using VDS+TASS, independently towed, similar to CAPTAS4 and 4CI (but with much compact VDS fish)

I think you are right.

I confused myself. What I was referring to above was not for the Netherlands Navy, but for the Canadian Navy. The Canadians are not fitting CAPTAS to their T26, instead they're going all in on the Canadian developed towed low-frequency active sonar, which is a derivative of the sonar used by the Netherlands Navy.

What all this demonstrates is a wide choice of different sonar suites for different jobs. The T26 is specifically designed for passive detection in the open ocean, and equipped with the very capable CAPTAS-4 to do the job. Is there an opportunity for a frigate fitted with a modern compact active sonar to operate in coastal environments?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1427
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 08 May 2019, 10:02

Ron5 wrote:this "factory" is just a large shed where the ships can be fully built out of the (Scottish) rain.
The production facility at Scotstoun was to be a lot more than a simple build hall, are you taking in regard to the cheaper Govan proposal?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5670
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 08 May 2019, 10:02

Ron5 wrote:this "factory" is just a large shed where the ships can be fully built out of the (Scottish) rain.

An indoor assembly facility... sounds a lot like a factory.
@LandSharkUK

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1092
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 08 May 2019, 10:06

Tempest414 wrote: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


Well I did say this on the 25 April

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10028
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 May 2019, 11:51

Ron5 wrote:can be fully built out of the (Scottish) rain. As it stands they will be assembled out in the elements.
Strong point about the rain (and wind). It did include doing away with the separation (for these frigates) of activity across two different locations, though.
Ron5 wrote:No "we" didn't. As recently as last month the MoD were saying that GFE was to be included.
I tried to avoid saying "I"... natural modesty. But ended up with the "Royal we" :o
Ron5 wrote:For a UK ship stuffed with UK systems i.e. Leander, FX risk is already kinda small. Now A140 is in a totally different situation with all its foreign kit.
Exactly what I said, but weighing the two (changes) at the same time - without a foot on the scale :lol:
Ron5 wrote:won't be this Xmas. Maybe the one after.
All my life... ;)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10028
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 May 2019, 12:03

shark bait wrote:What all this demonstrates is a wide choice of different sonar suites for different jobs. The T26 is specifically designed for passive detection in the open ocean, and equipped with the very capable CAPTAS-4 to do the job. Is there an opportunity for a frigate fitted with a modern compact active sonar to operate in coastal environments?


This is the misunderstanding (restated, not that it reoccurs in the quote) so frequent around here:
Two different games, and the RN has been on top of one of them. Take the Norgie (Kongsberg) products that for instance the Finnish Haminas (minute, coastal FACs) have that are variable depth but also designed to be used at higher speeds and when the vessel needs to manoeuvre (for one or another reason).

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 May 2019, 14:29

T31e program is now a more "normal" purchase. I guess, now there is no big difference to T26's contract, as;
1: FX risk and inflation risk is taken by MOD, not by industry,
2: GFE not included in the total cost.

I think "items-1" is the most important. The bidders are commercial farms. If they do not add up significant (say, 10-20%) margin cost for financial risk, their stakesholder will not allow to bid. Risk is cost. If MOD is not taking this risk, industry will "cost" it to MOD. Clear.

But, please note that this does not mean "more than 1.25B GBP for 5 hulls". Until Today (if it is 20%), it was "the 1.25B GBP is actually 1B GBP for build and 0.25B for financial risk-hedge". From now on, it is "1.25B GBP for 5 hulls".

The FX risk hedge part benefits Arrowhead 140 and possibly MEKO A200, for sure. [EDIT] I rethink this part. If RN/MOD do not like the FX risk, they will try to avoid it. "Not taking risk" could be a strong argument.


Item-2 makes us re-think of many things. MOD/RN need to think by themselves, "what is the best choice for UK"?

A: Is it better to export the 5 T23GP to Chili/Brazil, or scrap them to transfer equipments to T31e (and T26) ?

- Export will "distribute" UK-origin CMS, guns, CAMM-missiles in these countries, which will greatly benefit UK industries. Note that maintenance/logistic cost is the key, not only the sells price. This will also reduce the maintenance/logistic cost of RN escorts.
- Scrapping 5 T23GPs will enable transferring, guns (114 mm and 30 mm), Artisan radar, ESM/ECM/decoys (including torpedo defense), CAMM front-end control electronics, CMS consoles (and may software), and many other "RN" equipments. In this case, of course the Leander team will benefit the most, because of the highest commonality to T23GP equipments/CMS. Arrowhead 140 with Thales as a major member will not use the BAE CMSs. All other equipments are "new" to TACTICOS, so needs development cost, and all these cost is still "within" the 1.25B GBP. I guess Altas bid has the same problem.

B: How many GFE are "reserved" by UK, without binning 5 T23GP?

- CIWS will be from the "pooled 50".
- Some 114 mm guns, taken from T42s, are still held? (or all scrapped?).
- Some S2050 hull sonars, taken from T42s, are still held? (or all scrapped?).
Are there any good info on this part?


Overall, this does not mean the total cost is increased, and probably cut in other place is needed if more money/GFE are to be needed. In other words, we can "mix" the whole cost of SSS (1B GBP), T31e (1.25B GBP for build + 0.25B other), T23 export probability, and even part of the MHC hull-part cost (but maybe not the FLSS cost), and re-think the best balance.

To do so, I think we need time. (continues to my "normal proposal" to delay T31e for 2 years, to see SDSR2020 outcome :D).

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3475
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 08 May 2019, 16:35

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:this "factory" is just a large shed where the ships can be fully built out of the (Scottish) rain.
The production facility at Scotstoun was to be a lot more than a simple build hall, are you taking in regard to the cheaper Govan proposal?


No it wasn't. Just a big shed.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 May 2019, 16:36

shark bait wrote:I confused myself. What I was referring to above was not for the Netherlands Navy, but for the Canadian Navy. The Canadians are not fitting CAPTAS to their T26, instead they're going all in on the Canadian developed towed low-frequency active sonar, which is a derivative of the sonar used by the Netherlands Navy.
Guess this one.
https://gdmissionsystems.ca/en-CA/anti- ... rray-sonar

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3475
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 08 May 2019, 16:37

shark bait wrote:
Ron5 wrote:this "factory" is just a large shed where the ships can be fully built out of the (Scottish) rain.

An indoor assembly facility... sounds a lot like a factory.


So the QE assembly dock is a factory without a roof? Got it.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1092
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 08 May 2019, 16:39

On Save the RN site there take is that Type 31 could end up costing as much as 350 million


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: abc123, donald_of_tokyo and 20 guests