Page 379 of 766

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 14 May 2019, 01:52
by donald_of_tokyo
Caribbean wrote:The strategy is completely separate from any individual investment decisions - that's how Governments work. ... If the policy is well thought out and is still fit for purpose, then future investments that fall within it's remit will STILL have to comply with the policy, even if it's in 100 years time.
Thanks. I understand. But, supporting industry requires money. It is cannot be "when some money AAA GBP become available, we will follow this strategy how to use it". It needs to be, "to support this industry with BBB size, we need continuous investment of CCC GBP amount, following the DDD long term plan". If you take into account "competitive", this means "to support 3 industries with BBB' size, we need "3 times CCC' GBP money", ...". Industry strategy needs to be so. Without such investment plan, it is just a propaganda, not effective.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:In general, the builder has no free license for the ship design.
I didn't say or imply that . In general, however, the person who pays for the design owns it if they want to (there is a potential cost to retaining ownership, so they may decide that they do not want to).
Yes. Exactly from this reason, most of the IP of Arrowhead 140 shall be owned by Danish government (or OMT), who payed the expensive detailed-design part. Babcock will be paying a small fraction (10%?) of design cost (to account for RN-specified modification), and "own" only 10% (?) of the design (if not paying a lot).
... Technology transfer deals are also done all the time (though usually it's more a case of "we like the technology, so lets buy the company", rather than purchasing specific designs).
Exactly. It is very important Babcock "buys" OMT, if UK want the full IP of it. Then, it will work.
I do suggest that you take a detailed look through their websites...
Thanks, I will try read it. I agree it has good synergy with ship building, but, as you agreed, "efficiency will not be high". Industry must be cost efficient or technically well-advanced to survive, especially in shipbuilding which is very competitive field. These yard are gradually losing skills on ship building (while gaining those on offshore infra.). How can they win against Damen? NSS is aiming at export, which means they need to "win" against Damen, Navantia, and others, for example.

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 14 May 2019, 07:09
by ArmChairCivvy
Caribbean wrote:The money comes with the investment, not the strategy (though someone in the Civil Serice will have to be paid to "look after" the policy
In this case, a trading entity (of special kind, the alphabet soup for describing its status comes close to the good old COCOM):
Director Ships, DE&S is responsible for the procurement, through life support and eventual disposal of ships and equipment for the Royal Navy and other services involved in maritime operations. This ranges from major projects like the future aircraft carrier through to outboard motors used on rigid raiding craft and all of the spares with the engineering and logistical expertise that goes with this.
- for boats we now have the Submarine Delivery Agency (I think the head of it ranks on par with DE&S, but the organisation is not an arms length 'trading entity' but more akin to the 4 Commands as we know them)

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 14 May 2019, 07:32
by ArmChairCivvy
Caribbean wrote: Tempest414 wrote:
As I have said before in my book there is enough work on the MOD's books to keep 5 yards open.


In general I would agree with that. The key is to make that sustainable in the future
We tend to do stop and start: getting the T45s out of the way, in a hurry, to be able to start with the carriers... and then getting TOBA'ed to get over the valley of death before the existing capacity (remembering that 50% of the cost/ value of warships is in the fitting out stage, for which prep is done during build) again becomes a bottleneck.

As you say, the NSS is about fixing that. Not about any particular class of warships.

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 14 May 2019, 07:46
by shark bait
donald_of_tokyo wrote:French Navy ordered 5 FTI with the cost the same as that needed to buy 5 FREMM
Not quite, the FTI price is the future price including inflation.

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 14 May 2019, 08:25
by abc123
shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:French Navy ordered 5 FTI with the cost the same as that needed to buy 5 FREMM
Not quite, the FTI price is the future price including inflation.
Well maybe, but the difference isn't that big.

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 14 May 2019, 08:41
by shark bait
FREMM cost's around €1,000m/unit @ 2028 prices.
FTI will cost around €760/unit @ 2028 prices.

Not insignificant.

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 14 May 2019, 10:03
by donald_of_tokyo
shark bait wrote:FREMM cost's around €1,000m/unit @ 2028 prices.
FTI will cost around €760/unit @ 2028 prices.

Not insignificant.
Interesting. But it means 4 FREMM full or 5 FTI.

On the other hand, FTI cost includes detailed design and initial costs. For example, Naval’s person said now 300 engineer is working on FTI detailed design, to be followed by the steel cut next year. In case of FREMM, it was 3 unitcost equivalent. If the same, FTI unit cost will be 475M Euro...

French is investing a lot on ship design.

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 14 May 2019, 10:44
by shark bait
That last sentence is certainly true, makes the Brits strategy look amateur.

The Brits invested a lot in the T26 and QE design, and guess what they're selling! Who would have thunk it?

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 14 May 2019, 11:47
by NickC
shark bait wrote:FREMM cost's around €1,000m/unit @ 2028 prices.
FTI will cost around €760/unit @ 2028 prices.

Not insignificant.
The Spanish Ministry of Defence and Navantia signed contract 23rd April for five of the new F110 frigates worth €4.3M, build cost €3,700, €740M each / ~£640M, balance €600M design etc. judge the F110 more sophisticated than the FTI with its quiet HED propulsion system instead of all diesel, F110 has very similar propulsion system to T26, 40% larger displacement than FTI.

(F-110 frigates 145 m x 18 m / 6,100 tons. 16-cell VLS for SM-2 Block IIIB & ESSM Block II missiles; 127mm MG; anti-ship missiles, type ?; LWT launchers for MK 54 Mod 0; two 30mm guns, Meroka CIWS 12 barrel?. Propulsion CODLAG, hybrid, 4x 3MW diesel gensets, 2x 3.4MW electric motors and 1x GT (presuming a LM2500), ~ HED cruise 17 knots, maximum speed 28 knots, flight deck/hanger (Spain uses the SH-60) and multi-mission space in flexible configuration for TEU containers; RHIBs; MCM modules; UAV's. Sensors include new gen S and X-band radars with GaN silicon for the TRMs and Thales CAPTAS-4 VDS.)

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 14 May 2019, 19:04
by ArmChairCivvy
shark bait wrote:FREMM cost's around €1,000m/unit @ 2028 prices.
FTI will cost around €760/unit @ 2028 prices.

Not insignificant.
If you omit the cost of anchors, and their chains, you can slip one T-31 into each difference :lol:
5 FTIs and 5 T-31s for 5 FREMMs?

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 15 May 2019, 14:32
by Poiuytrewq
The transcript of the new Defence Secretary's speech at RUSI today.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... rence-2019

"I just want us to briefly recap the headlines from the last three defence reviews. In 1997, the review pledged to deliver 32 destroyers and frigates and 2 Amphibious Assault Ships. In the event, we got the 2 Assault ship…but only six frigates and destroyers.

In 2010 SDSR, we said we would deliver 2 carriers and 19 destroyers and frigates …of which 6 were Type 45s and 13 were Type 26s. Well we got the carriers. But the 13 Type 26s were reduced to 8 and we’ve ordered 3 of them.

And in SDSR 2015 we set out a shopping list of 8 T26s, 5 Type 31e, 2 OPVs and 4 ballistic missile submarines. I am determined that remains on track.

I ask you, what is the point of methodically reviewing threats and tasks, formulating capability and then not delivering it?

What’s the point of building ships only to mothball them for lack of crew, spares or funds?

What is the point of costly design and innovation if we only intend to build a handful?


What is the point of running on old vessels and delaying new ones and running up massive costs in the process?

If the RN and wider defence is to deliver on the ambitions of our country, then we must tackle both the funding and the political behaviours which constantly undermine it.

In the coming weeks, I’m going to be saying more about how we build on all the good work and lessons to date, most notably from the carrier alliance."
A solid start. Time will tell if the funding matches the rhetoric.

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 15 May 2019, 15:22
by albedo
Poiuytrewq wrote:A solid start. Time will tell if the funding matches the rhetoric.
That's quite an optimistic way of looking at it. Another is that new acquisitions will in future be limited to whatever can be genuinely afforded within the planned budget envelope and then resourced in service (crewed etc).

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 15 May 2019, 16:39
by Repulse
Another nail in the coffin of hopes to export the T31e? Perhaps the RN should buy some of these:

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/im ... combatant/

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 15 May 2019, 16:54
by Poiuytrewq
Repulse wrote:Another nail in the coffin of hopes to export the T31e? Perhaps the RN should buy some of these:

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/im ... combatant/
That was the type of versatility I was hoping we could build into the T31 programme. Clearly as far as the T31 programme is concerned, cost cutting was more important than innovating....

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 15 May 2019, 16:57
by Poiuytrewq
albedo wrote:Another is that new acquisitions will in future be limited to whatever can be genuinely afforded within the planned budget envelope and then resourced in service (crewed etc).
Nothing wrong with that. It would actually be quite a refreshing change.

Could this be were the honesty is going to start to appear? It might be the best way to embarrass the Treasury into funding defence properly.

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 15 May 2019, 19:40
by abc123
About foreign escort ships being a part of British carrier battle group:

https://navaltoday.com/2019/05/14/spani ... of-hormuz/
:think:

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 15 May 2019, 19:54
by Caribbean
Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate operating as a carrier escort (alongside British and Portugese ships). Pushing the A140?

https://navaltoday.com/2019/02/20/danis ... t-carrier/

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 15 May 2019, 20:07
by Caribbean
Since there has been much debate about the capabilities of the various candidates for the T31e, I thought I would throw some of OMT's own thoughts on the IH/ A140 design into the mix
2011- 2012

Three 130 m Frigate for the Royal Danish Navy. Vessel names are Iver Huitfeldt, Peter Willemoes and Niels Juel.

OMT’s scope of work was full design and construction of vessels at Odense Steel Shipyard. The vessels have been designed with low underwater noise radiation and equipment for submarine warfare.
Ditto for the Absolons

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 15 May 2019, 22:13
by Repulse
Perhaps some sense is coming... if that’s the case Arrowhead is dead.

https://www.janes.com/article/88461/uk- ... p-transfer

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 15 May 2019, 22:31
by Caribbean
Repulse wrote:Perhaps some sense is coming... if that’s the case Arrowhead is dead.
Why?

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 16 May 2019, 00:45
by donald_of_tokyo
Repulse wrote:Perhaps some sense is coming... if that’s the case Arrowhead is dead.

https://www.janes.com/article/88461/uk- ... p-transfer
Thanks. It means, NSS is dead? Not equipment but IP means, not the hull but the design. This is exactly T26 is doing, which is NOT included in NSS.

NSS is about exporting hulls, rather than designs. So the NSS might not be “within the emphasis” of UK trade office.

On T31, I also think this is supportive of Leander, which can both sell hulls along with NSS, and sell design (as BAE did with Thai on River b2 OPV) along with Trade office’s strategy.

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 16 May 2019, 07:09
by inch
Could it mean that the UK gov want the full IP rights for even choosing the arrowhead or meko design included for future export possibilities ?

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 16 May 2019, 07:39
by Caribbean
Since the T31e is intended for export, I very much doubt that Babcocks has got this far in the competition without addressing exporting the design, particularly as the RFI specifies
a "UK owned design"

as well as
The MOD may wish to compete future support arrangements, upgrade or modify the ships or
sub-systems independent of the original equipment manufacturer and support exports of
whole ships and or ship designs.

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 16 May 2019, 08:19
by shark bait
Caribbean wrote:The vessels have been designed with low underwater noise radiation and equipment for submarine warfare.
Their marketing team are using a very flexible definition of low. They fitted a real cheap propulsion system, the type found on cargo ships which have little interest in low noise, and there are no details of any other noise reduction measures.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Thanks. It means, NSS is dead? Not equipment but IP means, not the hull but the design.
Like the River Class to Thailand, Tide Class to Norway, T26 to Australia and Canada, and even QE to India.

I'm glad the DIT recognise this, if only the MOD would follow suit. Unfortunately the MOD prefer to believe the world wants cheap patrol frigates built in England because that's more convenient for their budget.

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Posted: 16 May 2019, 08:42
by Tempest414
shark bait wrote:I'm glad the DIT recognise this, if only the MOD would follow suite. Unfortunately the MOD prefer to believe the world wants cheap patrol frigates built in England because that's more convenient for their budget.
Now is this the MOD or HMG that want to believe this to suit there budget. plus they could still be built in Scotland