Plus the FMS fee (is it still 2.5%?)Ron5 wrote: pay exactly the same as the US military would
- exc. for partnering prgrms
- more often than not nothing is produced by those prgrms, though... so not a very good way to achieve "savings"
Plus the FMS fee (is it still 2.5%?)Ron5 wrote: pay exactly the same as the US military would
But if we costed that into the T31 budget it will account for 2.5% of the fixed price. So, since, we have a pool of them already, wouldn't it be more likely that they are not included in the project and then much like the RFAs the T31s will have them fitted as and when required.benny14 wrote:Also worth noting when thinking about the type 31. The Phalanx CIWS according to that document costs $8.28m, converted to pounds £6.02m. Would seem foolish not to have one for that price.
For ours, we could halve everything on T-31s exc. the CIWS and flight deck, and they would still be capable ships. Like the Finns seem to be thinking of putting that number of strike length silos across 4 corvettes, in total. And them being 3 kt only, that will probably mean along the centre lineNickC wrote:32 MK 41 VLS Strike length cells for SM-2s and 24 Mk 56 VLS cells for ESSM's, two eight deck launchers for Harpoon, two 76mm guns, two twin launchers for LWTs, Millennium 35mm cannon & Atlas Elektronik HMS, flight deck
With the support costs included. Going of the previous amount I listed. $4.35m per module x 4 = $17.4m. $70m - $17.4m gives us $52.6m / £38.19m for support costs, most likely slightly less considering I do not think they would get the same price as the US gets for the hardware.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Finnish navy gets 4 units of strike length mk41 VLS with $70m in FMS.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/fi ... ng-systems
True. But we will be adding potentially 5 type 31s with 1 CIWS and 9 type 26s with 2 CIWS each, plus the carriers and the tankers. I am not sure how many we have in inventory, if anyone knows?dmereifield wrote:So, since, we have a pool of them already, wouldn't it be more likely that they are not included in the project and then much like the RFAs the T31s will have them fitted as and when required.
I understand your calculation, but as a rule of thumb, procurement and support is 50:50. Also, what is included in "procurement" differs in many case. Block buy or not will also matter a lot.benny14 wrote:With the support costs included. Going of the previous amount I listed. $4.35m per module x 4 = $17.4m. $70m - $17.4m gives us $52.6m / £38.19m for support costs, most likely slightly less considering I do not think they would get the same price as the US gets for the hardware.
Gabrielle-san knows it quite well. I guess 36?True. But we will be adding potentially 5 type 31s with 1 CIWS and 9 type 26s with 2 CIWS each, plus the carriers and the tankers. I am not sure how many we have in inventory, if anyone knows?dmereifield wrote:So, since, we have a pool of them already, wouldn't it be more likely that they are not included in the project and then much like the RFAs the T31s will have them fitted as and when required.
Assuming we had to fit the whole fleet we would need 67. If we went of the 1/3 rule, we could equip the 1/3 deployed, and about half of those working up or in training. It does not give us much reserve in a situation where we have to deploy 2/3 of the fleet.donald_of_tokyo wrote:I guess 36?
All good things in one short sentence...Lord Jim wrote:growth potential is built in with greatly reduced upgrade costs down the line compared to stand alone systems for similar weapon systems down the line and there is the space issue.
Sorry, I do not agree to your point.ArmChairCivvy wrote:All good things in one short sentence...Lord Jim wrote:growth potential is built in with greatly reduced upgrade costs down the line compared to stand alone systems for similar weapon systems down the line and there is the space issue.
To my knowledge there is not a fixed fee.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Plus the FMS fee (is it still 2.5%?)Ron5 wrote: pay exactly the same as the US military would
- exc. for partnering prgrms
- more often than not nothing is produced by those prgrms, though... so not a very good way to achieve "savings"
Incorrect.Lord Jim wrote:As for ExLS, yes it does not need the Mk41
Or you could just leave a Mk 41 sized hole in your ship and use it for something else (say a gym) until it's needed for the VLS.ArmChairCivvy wrote:All good things in one short sentence...Lord Jim wrote:growth potential is built in with greatly reduced upgrade costs down the line compared to stand alone systems for similar weapon systems down the line and there is the space issue.
I agree to your technical assesment. For the export version of T31e, with mk41 user can put ESSM, very good for export.Lord Jim wrote:Designing the T-31e with one 8 cell self defence Mk41 would not be unaffordable. Ideally space should be available for a second. The CMS being made ready for Sea Ceptor is probably a given as that will be fitted as soon as possible. ExLS will be cleared for Sea Ceptor by the time the latter is fitted to the T-31e in all probability, as the export potential of the combination is too tempting.
It also seems to me that the Land-ceptor canisters look a lot like ExLS canisters, so perhaps a lot of that work has been completed.Lockheed Martin and MBDA announced in May 2013 a cooperative effort between the two companies to offer MBDA missile systems for use with the MK 41 and ExLS family of launchers. The system uses MBDA’s soft vertical launch technology to eject the CAMM from its canister and position the missile for main motor ignition.
I guess it is simply 16 land attack missile and 8 SSM. If TLAM is selected, then all 24 will be block4 anti-ship capable missile. If LRASM is selected, an option will be to use 24 LRASM also for land attack. Good flexibility. And, no need to use Mk 41 VLS for CAMM, no need, completely a waste of money.Lord Jim wrote:Why does the T-26 need 24 VL silos if it is not going to fire Sea Ceptor from them. Seems an awful lot for weapons systems we haven't even decided on?
We dont have ship launch-able TLAMs, they are all for the submarines. I am not sure if we are able to convert them and if we have enough of them.Lord Jim wrote:16 TLAMs would be over double what the SSNs carry, do we have that many?
I too suspect that, but we wont know until we get an announcement on it.Caribbean wrote:It also seems to me that the Land-ceptor canisters look a lot like ExLS canisters, so perhaps a lot of that work has been completed.
Evidence?Zealot wrote:It will be 16 ASROC maybe even 24, they wont have any other ASW weapon after all.
As stated above.Lord Jim wrote:Why does the T-26 need 24 VL silos if it is not going to fire Sea Ceptor from them. Seems an awful lot for weapons systems we haven't even decided on?
You can reload ASROC at sea?Lord Jim wrote:This is the Fantasy thread isn't it?
Regarding ASROC most USN vessels carry 8 plus 4 reloads. As for TLAM, fitting it to the T-26 puts it into the same category as ASROC, LRASM and so on, basically all on the "Wish list".
The fact there will be no stingray on board and no other mention of alternative ASW systems. The only confirmed ASW platforms are its Helicopters.benny14 wrote:Evidence?Zealot wrote:It will be 16 ASROC maybe even 24, they wont have any other ASW weapon after all.