Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

How would that cost if built in british yard ?

Wonder how much all the desirable sensors & weopons would cost....1/2 to 2/3 of the cost of a T26


Still think there is a need for small number of cheaper ships ( or more investment ) for all the tasks that are demanded of the RN

So this is my thinking is that a Type 31 with 40 CAMM , 16 NSM's plus Sea Lancer would cost about 360 million unit price so just over 2/5th that of a current type 26

Adding Mk-41 will add cost clearly

£2bn for 5 ships, plus £55mn for Babcock to support enhancement insertions (not the enhancements themselves). £4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s. Can we please stop with the made up numbers and comparisons.

[serge750]

when the T31 do start comisioning replace the gp T23 taskings, but in the longer term - 1 in uk waters, 1 in the med, 1 or maybe 2 EOS, but that depends on the threat level at the time, as said i see them as lower level threat place holders that have been bought to keep the hull numbers up in the short term..

[Scimitar54]

Repulse wrote:-

£4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s.

That figure is an RN provided figure!

[new guy]

How would that cost if built in british yard ?

Wonder how much all the desirable sensors & weopons would cost....1/2 to 2/3 of the cost of a T26


Still think there is a need for small number of cheaper ships ( or more investment ) for all the tasks that are demanded of the RN

So this is my thinking is that a Type 31 with 40 CAMM , 16 NSM's plus Sea Lancer would cost about 360 million unit price so just over 2/5th that of a current type 26

Adding Mk-41 will add cost clearly

£2bn for 5 ships, plus £55mn for Babcock to support enhancement insertions (not the enhancements themselves). £4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s. Can we please stop with the made up numbers and comparisons.

No, the £55m for CIP is inside the £2bn budget. Just like the £1.25bn contract for the ships themselves and the £70m contract for the integration centre.

[new guy]

I would joined the Dutch,Belgium and French program and built around 6-8 vessels…

Absolutely - 8 would allow the RN to commit a vessel permanently each to SNMCMG1, SNMCMG2 and Kipion, plus one “on call” for anything happening in UK waters.

Make it 10 and we’ve answered the B1 River replacement requirement.

We have already outgrown that design.
The RN plans to have 3 boats per MMCM system, and the french design ownly has 2 boat bays.
Then add the fact that we also have the SWEEP system which is at a minimum 1 ARCIMS boat and 3 Coil Auxillary Boats that I believe stack into the space of 1 ARCIMS.
Add on the Portable Command Centres, the multiple equipment changes for the USV's, future growth, UUV's, e.c.t, e.c.t then it is all to clear.

So unless we end uk with a fleet of commercial ships capable of operating these but adding nothing more what do you suggest? The T31 can’t handle that number of large USVs (even in Polish configuration), though the Rivers and T26 can, along with the amphibious ships.

If the RN wants to be a lead in NATO against probable Russian threats, contributing to SNMCMG1 and SNMCMG2 is surely a must. Kipion I can give or take.

They are MCM ships, so yes, I would say actually being able to do their main task is important even though you don't seem to think so.
They can also still do "other stuff"
. ASW- ARCIMS
. Large space for HADR relief, aid, stores.
. Enhanced Maritime situational awareness with all the unmanned systems
. Hydrographic survey through inherent features and the MCM tools embarked and the 11m SEA class survey workboats very, very similar to the ARCIMS SWEEP boats.


It's not like the MCMV's before were being used for patrol tasks, or will the // city class. There isn't even a need par the RB1 replacements given that the P in MHPC has been fulfilled by the RB2's.

[Repulse]

How would that cost if built in british yard ?

Wonder how much all the desirable sensors & weopons would cost....1/2 to 2/3 of the cost of a T26


Still think there is a need for small number of cheaper ships ( or more investment ) for all the tasks that are demanded of the RN

So this is my thinking is that a Type 31 with 40 CAMM , 16 NSM's plus Sea Lancer would cost about 360 million unit price so just over 2/5th that of a current type 26

Adding Mk-41 will add cost clearly

£2bn for 5 ships, plus £55mn for Babcock to support enhancement insertions (not the enhancements themselves). £4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s. Can we please stop with the made up numbers and comparisons.

No, the £55m for CIP is inside the £2bn budget. Just like the £1.25bn contract for the ships themselves and the £70m contract for the integration centre.

As reported, the £55mn is for costs not envisaged in the original budget - can you provide a link to prove this was in?

[SW1]

I would joined the Dutch,Belgium and French program and built around 6-8 vessels…

Absolutely - 8 would allow the RN to commit a vessel permanently each to SNMCMG1, SNMCMG2 and Kipion, plus one “on call” for anything happening in UK waters.

Make it 10 and we’ve answered the B1 River replacement requirement.

We have already outgrown that design.
The RN plans to have 3 boats per MMCM system, and the french design ownly has 2 boat bays.
Then add the fact that we also have the SWEEP system which is at a minimum 1 ARCIMS boat and 3 Coil Auxillary Boats that I believe stack into the space of 1 ARCIMS.
Add on the Portable Command Centres, the multiple equipment changes for the USV's, future growth, UUV's, e.c.t, e.c.t then it is all to clear.

So unless we end uk with a fleet of commercial ships capable of operating these but adding nothing more what do you suggest? The T31 can’t handle that number of large USVs (even in Polish configuration), though the Rivers and T26 can, along with the amphibious ships.

Rivers can’t, t26 shouldn’t nor should t31 the paper I linked for new guy explains why.

[Repulse]

I would joined the Dutch,Belgium and French program and built around 6-8 vessels…

Absolutely - 8 would allow the RN to commit a vessel permanently each to SNMCMG1, SNMCMG2 and Kipion, plus one “on call” for anything happening in UK waters.

Make it 10 and we’ve answered the B1 River replacement requirement.

We have already outgrown that design.
The RN plans to have 3 boats per MMCM system, and the french design ownly has 2 boat bays.
Then add the fact that we also have the SWEEP system which is at a minimum 1 ARCIMS boat and 3 Coil Auxillary Boats that I believe stack into the space of 1 ARCIMS.
Add on the Portable Command Centres, the multiple equipment changes for the USV's, future growth, UUV's, e.c.t, e.c.t then it is all to clear.

So unless we end uk with a fleet of commercial ships capable of operating these but adding nothing more what do you suggest? The T31 can’t handle that number of large USVs (even in Polish configuration), though the Rivers and T26 can, along with the amphibious ships.

If the RN wants to be a lead in NATO against probable Russian threats, contributing to SNMCMG1 and SNMCMG2 is surely a must. Kipion I can give or take.

They are MCM ships, so yes, I would say actually being able to do their main task is important even though you don't seem to think so.
They can also still do "other stuff"
. ASW- ARCIMS
. Large space for HADR relief, aid, stores.
. Enhanced Maritime situational awareness with all the unmanned systems
. Hydrographic survey through inherent features and the MCM tools embarked and the 11m SEA class survey workboats very, very similar to the ARCIMS SWEEP boats.


It's not like the MCMV's before were being used for patrol tasks, or will the // city class. There isn't even a need par the RB1 replacements given that the P in MHPC has been fulfilled by the RB2's.

Are you talking about the T31?

Of so, all the published evidence shows it can handle boats up to 7.5m and not more. Therefore, no they are not MCM ships - please share some more evidence if you have it?

MCMs have historically always had a secondary Patrol role. The “P” bit was always covered as they had a radar, a gun and the ability to launch boats. It seems pretty stupid not to keep this secondary role unless we are going fully unarmed civilian motherships, at which point you might as well contract Serco.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Rivers can’t, t26 shouldn’t nor should t31 the paper I linked for new guy explains why.

https://www.bmt.org/media/3054/rina-war ... -paper.pdf

All depend on what to be tasked. River OPV can handle ARCIMS MCM USV, 6t weight, with 3t cargo. But, of course, not good at. Just it.

T26 can also handle ARCIMS MCM USV as well. I understand its mission bay is actually designed so. Of course, as noted in the paper, using T26 as a permanent MCM system deployment asset is pointless. But carrying them when needed, or as an ASW asset, is just good.

T31? No idea. It is NOT designed to carry ARCIMS system. Of course, several REMUS pods can be handled.

It is just that, the fact that OPV and T26 can handle MCM USVs do not negate the need for MHC LSVs and OSV.

[new guy]

They are MCM ships, so yes, I would say actually being able to do their main task is important even though you don't seem to think so.
They can also still do "other stuff"
. ASW- ARCIMS
. Large space for HADR relief, aid, stores.
. Enhanced Maritime situational awareness with all the unmanned systems
. Hydrographic survey through inherent features and the MCM tools embarked and the 11m SEA class survey workboats very, very similar to the ARCIMS SWEEP boats.


It's not like the MCMV's before were being used for patrol tasks, or will the // city class. There isn't even a need par the RB1 replacements given that the P in MHPC has been fulfilled by the RB2's.

Are you talking about the T31?

Of so, all the published evidence shows it can handle boats up to 7.5m and not more. Therefore, no they are not MCM ships - please share some more evidence if you have it?

MCMs have historically always had a secondary Patrol role. The “P” bit was always covered as they had a radar, a gun and the ability to launch boats. It seems pretty stupid not to keep this secondary role unless we are going fully unarmed civilian motherships, at which point you might as well contract Serco.

No, I refer the the Royal Navy approved plan of LSV's / PSV's / OSV's.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...
MCMs have historically always had a secondary Patrol role. The “P” bit was always covered as they had a radar, a gun and the ability to launch boats. It seems pretty stupid not to keep this secondary role unless we are going fully unarmed civilian motherships, at which point you might as well contract Serco.

Not sure.

As already noted, MHPC is dead, and it is MHC and Rive B2 OPV.

Then, on the patrol aspects of MCMVs. MCM USVs with RWS and sensor kits can be a good sentry, already. A 4000-8000t PSV type vessel can carry a 30mm gun or two, and can be used for patrol task when needed.

Anyway, MCMVs were relatively cheap, in the old days. But nowadays, a MCMV is more expensive than a River B2 OPV. Risking these high-end MCM assets just for patrol, on which they are never good at (slow, small, not well protected, crewed with precious MCM specialists), looks like not a good idea these days. Just my opinion.

[Repulse]

Repulse wrote:-

£4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s.

That figure is an RN provided figure!

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... in-glasgow

[Repulse]

Not sure.

As already noted, MHPC is dead, and it is MHC and Rive B2 OPV.

You right it is currently dead, though equally it can be revived if needed - it’s just a label in my view.

Then, on the patrol aspects of MCMVs. MCM USVs with RWS and sensor kits can be a good sentry, already. A 4000-8000t PSV type vessel can carry a 30mm gun or two, and can be used for patrol task when needed.

It can, and as long as the design meets the requirement, including the threat level then absolutely do this. Though big is not always best, so whilst it can be part of the answer, it’s not the full answer.

Anyway, MCMVs were relatively cheap, in the old days. But nowadays, a MCMV is more expensive than a River B2 OPV. Risking these high-end MCM assets just for patrol, on which they are never good at (slow, small, not well protected, crewed with precious MCM specialists), looks like not a good idea these days. Just my opinion.

The Hunts (nor Sandowns) were not cheap, the River class were - so in short it depends, but they are relatively cheaper now. The role wouldn’t be just patrol, but had a ship that could be cheaply forward based somewhere like the OPVs and also be transformed (via airlifted modules) to do a valuable MCM role would be optimal. Equally, if the OPV replacements for the UK EEZ can do both it would enable a cost effective solution. It’s supposed to be about protean by design.

[Tempest414]

How would that cost if built in british yard ?

Wonder how much all the desirable sensors & weopons would cost....1/2 to 2/3 of the cost of a T26


Still think there is a need for small number of cheaper ships ( or more investment ) for all the tasks that are demanded of the RN

So this is my thinking is that a Type 31 with 40 CAMM , 16 NSM's plus Sea Lancer would cost about 360 million unit price so just over 2/5th that of a current type 26

Adding Mk-41 will add cost clearly

£2bn for 5 ships, plus £55mn for Babcock to support enhancement insertions (not the enhancements themselves). £4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s. Can we please stop with the made up numbers and comparisons.

Please lets not go down this hole again 268 million so far for type 31 per unit and type 26 B2 860 million per unit so far yes type 31 will cost more per unit but so will type 26 B2

[Repulse]

How would that cost if built in british yard ?

Wonder how much all the desirable sensors & weopons would cost....1/2 to 2/3 of the cost of a T26


Still think there is a need for small number of cheaper ships ( or more investment ) for all the tasks that are demanded of the RN

So this is my thinking is that a Type 31 with 40 CAMM , 16 NSM's plus Sea Lancer would cost about 360 million unit price so just over 2/5th that of a current type 26

Adding Mk-41 will add cost clearly

£2bn for 5 ships, plus £55mn for Babcock to support enhancement insertions (not the enhancements themselves). £4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s. Can we please stop with the made up numbers and comparisons.

Please lets not go down this hole again 268 million so far for type 31 per unit and type 26 B2 860 million per unit so far yes type 31 will cost more per unit but so will type 26 B2

I’m happy to stop, but please stop quoting made up numbers.

[Tempest414]

How would that cost if built in british yard ?

Wonder how much all the desirable sensors & weopons would cost....1/2 to 2/3 of the cost of a T26


Still think there is a need for small number of cheaper ships ( or more investment ) for all the tasks that are demanded of the RN

So this is my thinking is that a Type 31 with 40 CAMM , 16 NSM's plus Sea Lancer would cost about 360 million unit price so just over 2/5th that of a current type 26

Adding Mk-41 will add cost clearly

£2bn for 5 ships, plus £55mn for Babcock to support enhancement insertions (not the enhancements themselves). £4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s. Can we please stop with the made up numbers and comparisons.

Please lets not go down this hole again 268 million so far for type 31 per unit and type 26 B2 860 million per unit so far yes type 31 will cost more per unit but so will type 26 B2

I’m happy to stop, but please stop quoting made up numbers.

If you can tell which numbers I have made up please

[new guy]

How would that cost if built in british yard ?

Wonder how much all the desirable sensors & weopons would cost....1/2 to 2/3 of the cost of a T26


Still think there is a need for small number of cheaper ships ( or more investment ) for all the tasks that are demanded of the RN

So this is my thinking is that a Type 31 with 40 CAMM , 16 NSM's plus Sea Lancer would cost about 360 million unit price so just over 2/5th that of a current type 26

Adding Mk-41 will add cost clearly

£2bn for 5 ships, plus £55mn for Babcock to support enhancement insertions (not the enhancements themselves). £4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s. Can we please stop with the made up numbers and comparisons.

No, the £55m for CIP is inside the £2bn budget. Just like the £1.25bn contract for the ships themselves and the £70m contract for the integration centre.

As reported, the £55mn is for costs not envisaged in the original budget - can you provide a link to prove this was in?

Where was this reported?

[tomuk]

Repulse wrote:-

£4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s.

That figure is an RN provided figure!

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... in-glasgow

Will it still be £4.2bn in 2033?

[Poiuytrewq]

All depend on what to be tasked. River OPV can handle ARCIMS MCM USV, 6t weight, with 3t cargo. But, of course, not good at. Just it.

T26 can also handle ARCIMS MCM USV as well. I understand its mission bay is actually designed so…….T31? No idea. It is NOT designed to carry ARCIMS system. Of course, several REMUS pods can be handled.

It is just that, the fact that OPV and T26 can handle MCM USVs do not negate the need for MHC LSVs and OSV.

My issue with the direction of travel is the lack of standardisation.

Why not design the T31s and the T26s to handle the same kit? This would negate the T32 which is clearly designed to solve this problem.

All vessels should be able to handle whatever system is chosen and then follow on system can stick with the same design parameters going forward.

The simple fact is that no current RN escort can launch or recover a 11m craft. The T26 is designed to accommodate 11m craft and therefore the T31 should also be able to as they are replacing 5x T26GP.

IMO the future MCM kit as well as littoral ASW kit was and still is supposed to be platform agnostic. Therefore it should be able to be easily launched and recovered from the T26, T31, T83, OPVs, MRSS, FSS and the Tides etc as well as MROSS and the LSVs.

How much money on kit and training could RN save with a ruthless drive on prioritisation of MCM, ASW, Radar, CMS, and reducing the guns to 127mm, 57mm and 40mm only?

RN is far too small to be messing around with bespoke systems and introducing platforms and systems with known bottlenecks even before construction begins.

[Tempest414]

Repulse wrote:-

£4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s.

That figure is an RN provided figure!

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... in-glasgow

Will it still be £4.2bn in 2033?

We need to remember the on top of the 4.2 billion for the 5 T-26B2's we need to add GFE so 250 million + for the 127mm gun system , 100 million for the CAMM system plus the cost of the HMS and other MOD contacts for type 26

This why I say the B2's are somewhere around 855 million each as it stands

[NickC]

Repulse wrote:-

£4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s.

That figure is an RN provided figure!

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... in-glasgow

Will it still be £4.2bn in 2033?

We need to remember the on top of the 4.2 billion for the 5 T-26B2's we need to add GFE so 250 million + for the 127mm gun system , 100 million for the CAMM system plus the cost of the HMS and other MOD contacts for type 26

This why I say the B2's are somewhere around 855 million each as it stands

Would note the BAE £4.2B contract equates to £840M each and speculate the GFE to be approx £100M each so total approx. £940 million per ship though have seen no T26B2 figures released by the the MoD for GFE spend, if remember correctly GFE was £300M for T26B1, would add to your GFE list the new EW/ESM kit which understand funded by separate MoD contracts as will also be fitted across fleet to T31, T45s and carriers when upgraded.

[Tempest414]

Repulse wrote:-

£4.2bn for the 5 batch 2 T26s.

That figure is an RN provided figure!

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... in-glasgow

Will it still be £4.2bn in 2033?

We need to remember the on top of the 4.2 billion for the 5 T-26B2's we need to add GFE so 250 million + for the 127mm gun system , 100 million for the CAMM system plus the cost of the HMS and other MOD contacts for type 26

This why I say the B2's are somewhere around 855 million each as it stands

Would note the BAE £4.2B contract equates to £840M each and speculate the GFE to be approx £100M each so total approx. £940 million per ship though have seen no T26B2 figures released by the the MoD for GFE spend, if remember correctly GFE was £300M for T26B1, would add to your GFE list the new EW/ESM kit which understand funded by separate MoD contracts as will also be fitted across fleet to T31, T45s and carriers when upgraded.

After my last post I was thinking I had got it wrong as adding some 80 million to the 840 million was 920 million. This also kill the idea that ship 9 could be built for less than 800 million because even if BAE could knock 100 million off the build cost to get the cost down to 740 million we would still be looking at 60 million in GFE even without the 127mm gun system

[tomuk]

All depend on what to be tasked. River OPV can handle ARCIMS MCM USV, 6t weight, with 3t cargo. But, of course, not good at. Just it.

T26 can also handle ARCIMS MCM USV as well. I understand its mission bay is actually designed so…….T31? No idea. It is NOT designed to carry ARCIMS system. Of course, several REMUS pods can be handled.

It is just that, the fact that OPV and T26 can handle MCM USVs do not negate the need for MHC LSVs and OSV.

My issue with the direction of travel is the lack of standardisation.

Why not design the T31s and the T26s to handle the same kit? This would negate the T32 which is clearly designed to solve this problem.

All vessels should be able to handle whatever system is chosen and then follow on system can stick with the same design parameters going forward.

The simple fact is that no current RN escort can launch or recover a 11m craft. The T26 is designed to accommodate 11m craft and therefore the T31 should also be able to as they are replacing 5x T26GP.

IMO the future MCM kit as well as littoral ASW kit was and still is supposed to be platform agnostic. Therefore it should be able to be easily launched and recovered from the T26, T31, T83, OPVs, MRSS, FSS and the Tides etc as well as MROSS and the LSVs.

How much money on kit and training could RN save with a ruthless drive on prioritisation of MCM, ASW, Radar, CMS, and reducing the guns to 127mm, 57mm and 40mm only?

RN is far too small to be messing around with bespoke systems and introducing platforms and systems with known bottlenecks even before construction begins.

If no current RN escort can launch the gear then it isn't really platform agnostic is it. Surely for a platform agnostic solution it would need to be based on the dimensions of a Pacific RHIB which all vessels can handle both RN and other navies.

I'm still not clear what the requirement is for the T26 to carry MCM USVs as the T26 will be our primary ASW platform and with only 8 I can't see any spare to be pottering around doing MCM work.

A ASW USV acting as a loyal wingman for ASW may have merit but who is to say it would be based on the same platform.

[donald_of_tokyo]

All depend on what to be tasked. River OPV can handle ARCIMS MCM USV, 6t weight, with 3t cargo. But, of course, not good at. Just it.

T26 can also handle ARCIMS MCM USV as well. I understand its mission bay is actually designed so…….T31? No idea. It is NOT designed to carry ARCIMS system. Of course, several REMUS pods can be handled.

It is just that, the fact that OPV and T26 can handle MCM USVs do not negate the need for MHC LSVs and OSV.

My issue with the direction of travel is the lack of standardisation.

Why not design the T31s and the T26s to handle the same kit? This would negate the T32 which is clearly designed to solve this problem.

All vessels should be able to handle whatever system is chosen and then follow on system can stick with the same design parameters going forward.

The simple fact is that no current RN escort can launch or recover a 11m craft. The T26 is designed to accommodate 11m craft and therefore the T31 should also be able to as they are replacing 5x T26GP.

IMO the future MCM kit as well as littoral ASW kit was and still is supposed to be platform agnostic. Therefore it should be able to be easily launched and recovered from the T26, T31, T83, OPVs, MRSS, FSS and the Tides etc as well as MROSS and the LSVs.

How much money on kit and training could RN save with a ruthless drive on prioritisation of MCM, ASW, Radar, CMS, and reducing the guns to 127mm, 57mm and 40mm only?

RN is far too small to be messing around with bespoke systems and introducing platforms and systems with known bottlenecks even before construction begins.

Understandable, but as T31 is already under build, it is too late. ALSO, I do not think it is a big problem.

As is the case with everything, USV-based "additional kits" (including everything) will NOT be cheap. There will not be numbers of them (hence I even propose to buy SEAclass 15m boats for a half of the Archer replacements).

- A T31 will be in KIPION, and as a MHC LSV will be there, and it can also operate from Bahrain, there is no need for the KIPON T31 to carry MCM USVs. (In other words, 2 of the 5 T31s does not need it)
- A T31 will be there as FRE. As FRE is steaming around UK, or steaming FROM UK, if needed USV will deploy from port or a MHC LSV can be sent. (In other words, 2 of the 5 T31s does not need it)

As such, not many cases T31 will need it. Of course, it is not flexible. It shall better be a 7.5m+11.5m boat bays rather than 9.5m+9.5m boat bays. But, I think the loss is not large.

Let us rather think of using 3x 9.5m RHIB on T31, with 2 of them kitted with USV system (can be optionally manned), and one be normal one. Not bad.

[Poiuytrewq]

Surely for a platform agnostic solution it would need to be based on the dimensions of a Pacific RHIB which all vessels can handle both RN and other navies.

That is the simplest solution but RN have chosen not to do it and therefore all kinds of logistical contortions will be enviable downstream.

Justifying an entire class of five Frigates to accommodate a system is crazy if shrinking the LOA by 15% solves it.

If this is the justification for the T32 it’s going to be a hard sell to HMT.