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.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Feb 2019, 14:04

Caribbean wrote:The purpose of the T31e project is to build 5 ships within that framework and for a fixed budget of £1.5b. If that proves impossible (with good reason - "not enough profit" may not be high on that list, but it will probably factor in), then more money MAY be available (one increment of £250m has been allowed so far and the position seems to have changed on the cost of equipment cross-decking being inside of the £1.5b budget).
The purpose of National Ship-building Strategy (NSbS) is to improve the competitiveness of British shipbuilders, and T31e is defined as the tool to establish it. T26 sells has shown BAES ship design and promotion team is competitive, but none of the exported hulls are built in UK, and therefore T26 has little to do with NSbS.

If you really want to export T31e, you need to spend significant money on
- building up an efficient infrastructure,
- designing and testing an innovative and competitive design,
- in order to make the unit cost as cheap as possible
T31e program totally lack the first two expensive part.

As a natural result, T31e program is now importing foreign design (Atlas and Babcock), or BAES itself bidding, "using" Camell Laird facility to build. The ship builder partnered with Atlas may be able to learn how Germans build the 2nd-tier frigates. Babcock may be able to learn and steal the technology from Danish OMT. I am not kidding here. In NSbS point of view, this is "must". If it is BAES, they need to establish the way to build 2nd-tier escort cheaply in "other" shipyards, and Camell Laird must learn from BAES.

Even though they built S.D. Attemborough, Camell Laird is NOT YET competitive enough as NSnS requires. They are currently cutting their labor force even though big RFA and T45 refit bids were won. At least, CL themselves do not see good chance to get export bids. To be more competitive, they need to improve more.

From these assessments, I can say, I do not believe what NSbS says.
... What is more important than the initial role specification is what the design is capable of being. The more that goes into the hull rather than what you bolt onto the hull, the better, the larger, the better, the more flexible, the better. This is a design that should provide the second tier for the RN (and hopefully the top tier for a number of smaller navies that are looking to improve their current fleets) for many years to come.
What is important is how the design is "exportable built in UK". Other than BAE Leander, they are not of UK design. So forget about "design export". (T26 and Tides are already successful there :thumbup: )

As already presented elsewhere, if the ship is too capable, the nations wanting them will be "large/medium", and they will try to built it in their own ship builders, not in UK. Exceptions are Saudi-Arabia (FTI or FREMM may get it), New Zealand (the only chance?), and .... I have no other candidates. But, even if UK wins RNZN order, it cannot support UK shipbuilders for decades.

On the other hand, if the ship is too "corvette" like, there are already big competitors: Gowind-2500 and Damen 10514. Italian corvette is also competitive. Of course, there are Chinese, Korean, and Indian ones.

I think the good way to go is to make it "cheap" but "long leg". As armed as Gowind-2500 and Damen 10514, a bit larger to have a good range/endurance. (just repeating the T31e RFI).

The design shall be capable of adopting many options, but it does not need to take all the options on. A or B, NOT A and B. For example, UK T31e will NOT be significantly improved. There are many "holes" in UK military, and up-arming T31e will be not in high priority. (more P-8A, more F35B, T26 land attack missile, T45 CAMM and 5in gun...). A big hollow ship is also not competitive in export.
Not so long ago, there were plenty of voices on here expressing the view that we would never sell the T26 design, because it was too big, too RN-specific, too expensive, too whatever. Look at it now.
As I said, this is ship designing and promotion, not building. And, it is BAE, not Babcock nor Atlas.
If the first five T31 are implemented as "patrol" frigates, then I don't see it as a problem, as long as the hull is capable of being other things.
I see very little chance to see "the 2nd batch" of T31e, and even so, I am not sure it is better than adding a few more T26, British owned, British origin design, successful in export. RAN and RCS decision has changed the atmosphere here. More T26 than more T31, I guess?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Feb 2019, 14:52

RetroSicotte wrote:
NickC wrote:No mention of T45 exports

Which competitions did it enter to have lost?


This cuts both ways... exc. that IH is still (?) in the running

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Feb 2019, 15:33

It would be interesting to see the actual proposed IH design that has been proposed for the T-31e, I have only seen illustrations of the Danish vessels. How much did they save by using Stan-Flex modules they already had to fit out their vessels?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Feb 2019, 15:38

Lord Jim wrote: How much did they save by using Stan-Flex modules they already had to fit out their vessels?


That might be the point in Danish Navy savings, but I very much doubt it has much to do with the RN choice (exc. for the wider point of configurability of
A. later in life, and
B. of the same base design)

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 15 Feb 2019, 15:47

Taking a foreign design and trying to build it cheaper in the UK is nuts IMO. We need a UK USP, which in my view is:

- an innovative platform design (empty at say £100mn per unit)
- modular build allowing for a range of build options (e.g. all in the U.K., all in buyers country or a mixture)
- an world beating catalogue of add-ones (Radar, CMS, weapons and off board systems)
- support service offerings (maintenance and training)

Having a scaleable offering in the £100-£250mn range would be a winner.

I believe the RN doesn’t need a long legged Patrol ship, it needs something that can be forward based (short legged) targeted for Littoral operations with sensors/weapons capable of sea denial and screening HVUs. An evolution of the River Class (but smaller than the Leander design) would get my vote, it would also be attractive to Brazil and Thailand that have versions already.
"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

NickC
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 15 Feb 2019, 16:34

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
NickC wrote:No mention of T45 exports

Which competitions did it enter to have lost?


This cuts both ways... exc. that IH is still (?) in the running


My understanding, please correct if wrong, T45 never entered competition for export.

My suspicion is that it was just too expensive and had a unique and untried propulsion system that proved a lemon as never went through full R&D (the WR-21 with a Westinghouse (Northrop Grumman) intercooler/recuperator with RR GT).

T26 reverted to a version of the tried and tested T23 HED propulsion system.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Feb 2019, 17:12

NickC wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
NickC wrote:No mention of T45 exports

Which competitions did it enter to have lost?


This cuts both ways... exc. that IH is still (?) in the running


A lot of extra detail there - that I have tried to highlight on other threads, actually.

The point being:
- T-45 far too specialised
- T-26 has already squared off the market there is to be had

... next? T31e
why, why, why was it of the 3-series? Ask yourself that question

T45 never entered competition for export. For a reason.

My suspicion is that it was just too expensive and had a unique and untried propulsion system that proved a lemon as never went through full R&D (the WR-21 with a Westinghouse (Northrop Grumman) intercooler/recuperator with RR GT).

T26 reverted to a version of the tried and tested T23 HED propulsion system.


Too many nested quotes, sorry about messing some of it up... the MSG is clear, though? 8-)

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2385
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 15 Feb 2019, 17:50

NickC wrote: and had a unique and untried propulsion system that proved a lemon

That's a bit of an over-exaggeration really.

matt00773
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby matt00773 » 15 Feb 2019, 18:17

NickC wrote:T26 reverted to a version of the tried and tested T23 HED propulsion system.
T26 didn't revert from the T45 propulsion system - it was never intended to have IEP. It has its own unique CODLOG system that was designed for next generation AWS. It's more advanced than the CODLAG system in the T23s.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Feb 2019, 18:51

Repulse wrote:Taking a foreign design and trying to build it cheaper in the UK is nuts IMO. We need a UK USP, which in my view is:

- an innovative platform design (empty at say £100mn per unit)
- modular build allowing for a range of build options (e.g. all in the U.K., all in buyers country or a mixture)
- an world beating catalogue of add-ones (Radar, CMS, weapons and off board systems)
- support service offerings (maintenance and training)

Having a scaleable offering in the £100-£250mn range would be a winner.

I believe the RN doesn’t need a long legged Patrol ship, it needs something that can be forward based (short legged) targeted for Littoral operations with sensors/weapons capable of sea denial and screening HVUs. An evolution of the River Class (but smaller than the Leander design) would get my vote, it would also be attractive to Brazil and Thailand that have versions already.


All of those are already on the market the Meko 200 series for example. We could order five with most of the module slots empty except for the main gun, and a Mk41 module and it would meet most of the T-31e requirements.

The only way the RN is going to get a platform with a warfighting capability is to put more money into the programme. As for exports, it will be competing in a pretty crowded arena with designs from Italy, Germany and France either already in the water or well on the way. Yes we have done pretty well with Corvette designs in the past, but these have mainly been to rich countries, many who now want platforms that are larger and more capable.

We need to accept that the T-31e will probably end up like a UK version of the Floureal if that is how you spell it. Perfectly serviceable in the role it is designed for but not an escort in an y shape or form. The UK is not going to have 19 escorts once the T-23s leave service by 14. I will go far as to say we need to underspend o the T-31e programme if possible, with any money saved going elsewhere. Reuse a Mk8, have it FFBNW a Phalanx, have two M2 HMG mounts, two RHIBs and a hanger for a medium sized helicopter which would normally be something leased for the FAA, not necessarily a military spec machine. Give it good range and adequate speed and make sure it has climate controlled accommodation to cope with either very cold or very hot climates. Enable a small crew to man it but have space for additional personnel, say twenty extra if needed. Look upon it as a high endurance patrol cutter rather than a warship and face the reality of what the T-31e is gong to be. If more money appears then fantastic we can have a proper light frigate, but I won't hold my breath.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Feb 2019, 18:59

I am sorry to object to the two contributors (above) as this is a much more general point:

Can you please quote the points, rather than the whole contribution, that you are responding to.
-reading the same 'stuff' over -and over - again just makes my mind go numb.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 15 Feb 2019, 19:44

Lord Jim, the main focus needs to be on what the RN needs, and whilst you could argue that the B2 could have done with a hangar, it is the long ranged patrol cutter you are looking for. The B2 is also in a crowded market, but has has “some” export success.

For the forward presence requirement what is needed is a smaller short legged Littoral warship that balances a higher spec of kit vs range / size - tbh remove the hangar from the Al Khareef class to make space for a Merlin capable flight deck and maybe we have our T31 :)
"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

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 15 Feb 2019, 21:04

Caribbean wrote:The purpose of the T31e project is to build 5 ships within that framework and for a fixed budget of £1.5b


You are misinformed, the budget has not changed, it remains 1.25b for 5 ships.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Feb 2019, 22:09

Repulse wrote:Lord Jim, the main focus needs to be on what the RN needs, and whilst you could argue that the B2 could have done with a hangar, it is the long ranged patrol cutter you are looking for. The B2 is also in a crowded market, but has has “some” export success.

For the forward presence requirement what is needed is a smaller short legged Littoral warship that balances a higher spec of kit vs range / size - tbh remove the hangar from the Al Khareef class to make space for a Merlin capable flight deck and maybe we have our T31 :)


Maybe with some out of the box thinking we could go along that train of thought but the RFI is going to produce an under armed frigate that can wave the flag and carryout patrol duties. It will not be a warship and only be an escort in the eyes of 10 Downing Streets PR Department. What the RN needs is not really part of the equation, this is a programme purely based on the NSS and to give the illusion that we are maintaining the size of the fleet.

Personally I think the £!.25Bn could be spent better elsewhere and we should accept a drop in Escort numbers unless additional funding becomes available to increase the number of T-26 planned. I mean the T-31e budget would almost allow us to purchase an additional squadron of F-35s faster so that we could have three frontline squadrons available by the mid 2020s.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Feb 2019, 22:12

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I am sorry to object to the two contributors (above) as this is a much more general point:

Can you please quote the points, rather than the whole contribution, that you are responding to.
-reading the same 'stuff' over -and over - again just makes my mind go numb.


I wouldn't say that, I would say we are at opposite ends of the discussion in most areas. Plus I cannot get the hang of how to use multiple quotes on here. :? :D

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Feb 2019, 08:17

Lord Jim wrote:cannot get the hang of how to use multiple quotes on here. :? :D


High light, if you want several: repeat and rinse. Then hit the Quick Reply button (not the other one) and write either the lead-in or context setting above it or comment below (or both :D )

Admins: is there any way to make this work across pages, or more broadly (technically the same thing?) across threads?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 16 Feb 2019, 08:19

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Admins: is there any way to make this work across pages, or more broadly (technically the same thing?) across threads?
That would save a bit of time and effort :thumbup:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1479
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 16 Feb 2019, 09:11

Ron5 wrote:You are misinformed, the budget has not changed, it remains 1.25b for 5 ships.

Nope, completely correct - the budget for the T31 project is £1.5b, of which £1.25b is the cost of the ships themselves and an additional £250m is for (so far not detailed - unless anyone has further information), "non-platform specific acquisition programme costs". Speculating, that could mean design costs, IP purchase, infrastructure expenditure, project office/ management costs etc. etc.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/773891/20181126-EP18_FINAL_v2.pdf

"The other significant component is the £1.5bn funding received from Head Office to cover the purchase cost of the Type 31e Frigates 12"

"12 The Department is planning for a cost of £250 million per platform and a further allocation of £250 million for non-platform specific acquisition programme costs."

By implication, the additional £250m costs will not now need to be met from within the original £1.25b budget, maintaining the amount to be spent directly on each hull at the £250m level.

This was all previously reported on the T31 News thread (@Sharkbait, IIRC), so shouldn't be a subject for dispute
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 16 Feb 2019, 09:38

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:You are misinformed, the budget has not changed, it remains 1.25b for 5 ships.

Nope, completely correct - the budget for the T31 project is £1.5b, of which £1.25b is the cost of the ships themselves and an additional £250m is for (so far not detailed - unless anyone has further information), "non-platform specific acquisition programme costs". Speculating, that could mean design costs, IP purchase, infrastructure expenditure, project office/ management costs etc. etc.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/773891/20181126-EP18_FINAL_v2.pdf

"The other significant component is the £1.5bn funding received from Head Office to cover the purchase cost of the Type 31e Frigates 12"

"12 The Department is planning for a cost of £250 million per platform and a further allocation of £250 million for non-platform specific acquisition programme costs."

By implication, the additional £250m costs will not now need to be met from within the original £1.25b budget, maintaining the amount to be spent directly on each hull at the £250m level.

This was all previously reported on the T31 News thread (@Sharkbait, IIRC), so shouldn't be a subject for dispute


Not sure of the definition of non-platform specific, could some of the additional £250 million be allocated to GFE costs (deinstallation, servicing, nominal cost of equipement)? Are the design costs (those already allocated, as well as possibke future) coming from this pot also?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 16 Feb 2019, 10:29

Caribbean wrote:....that could mean design costs, IP purchase, infrastructure expenditure, project office/ management costs etc. etc.
At £250m it's not an insignificant amount of money.
IP purchase
Has Babcock said they need another £250m to make it work? Are we effectively just setting the budget at a level to get the Arrowhead 140 after all?

infrastructure expenditure
If this £250m is going to allocated primarily for infrastructure improvements to enable an efficient T31 build why are we not doing it for the T26 build on the Clyde? Around £250m would build the proposed frigate factory at Scotstoun.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/131 ... the-clyde/
image.jpg

Are we now in a situation where the T26 build can't be made totally efficient because HMT won't release the funds at a fast enough pace to warrant the building of a super modern production line and £1bn or more will be wasted as a result.

In effect this inability to build these frigates as efficiently as possible is going to cost RN and the taxpayer a couple of additional T26's or five or six additional T31's. Personally I think it's a bit of a scandal but it's not exactly the first time.

The Frigate factory on the Clyde hasn't completely gone away....yet. https://www.marketscreener.com/BAE-SYST ... -27006976/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1479
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 16 Feb 2019, 10:34

dmereifield wrote:Not sure of the definition of non-platform specific, could some of the additional £250 million be allocated to GFE costs (deinstallation, servicing, nominal cost of equipement)? Are the design costs (those already allocated, as well as possibke future) coming from this pot also?

Good point on GFE - it could well include book value of transferred equipment, refurbishment costs etc. Not sure about design/ IP acquisition costs, as you could make a fair case that they are "platform specific".

I would also expect that any infrastructure element would be far more modest than the frigate factory. Probably more along the lines of health and safety compliance and possibly some new machine tools - that sort of thing
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

NickC
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 16 Feb 2019, 11:12

RetroSicotte wrote:
NickC wrote: and had a unique and untried propulsion system that proved a lemon

That's a bit of an over-exaggeration really.


Destroyers need big power for high speeds, GTs are compact, power dense, quiet, fast acceleration and low start up time, but and very big but at lower rotational speed pressure of the compressed air drops and thus thermal efficiency so as power is decreased below 90%, efficiency drops dramatically, with abysmal fuel consumption and become gas guzzlers.

MOD/RN were seduced by the promise of the next great leap forward with the GT by using an intercooler and recuperator that would deliver low specific fuel consumption across the engine's operating range. Not only did MOD fund this leap forward, but not with a low power GT for proof of concept but took the fateful decision to fund the full fat Westinghouse/Rolls Royce 25MW WR-21.

My presumption is that WR-21 went way over budget, MOD under budgetary pressure took a gamble and terminated R&D development testing before complete and ordered into production with the not unexcepted result that under certain operating conditions WR-21 "degraded catastrophically". MOD/RN between a rock and hard place, replace the WR-21 or try to sort it out, now in the dreaded concurrency mode, operational system while still in R&D. MOD/RN had to fund RR Bristol to re-start R&D with the WR-21, said to have re-designed 2,000 components to replace in the WR-21 and though improved still not meeting spec as also having fund the March 2018 £160 million contract with BAE for the T45 Power Improvement Project (PIP) to fit more powerful diesel gensets to power ship in low speed mode which the improved WR-21 still not suitable (Burkes spend ~ 50% time at or below 13 knots).

As have seen no figures of MOD total funding for development costs of the WR-21 and its subsequent re-design plus the PIP costs would expect looking at £1B plus?, so yes in my eyes a lemon as thinking if conventionally powered say as Dutch 6,000t HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën AAW class - CODAG or even the 6,600t Danish Iver Huitfeldt AAW class CODAD, the Navy could have spent an additional billion fitting the additional VLS cells, updating radar with GaN etc, think everyone could make a list for updating the T45 if funding available.

So a sad story and a reflection on the ineptitude of the MOD/RN as they took a gamble with an untried system when there was no need and it failed to deliver as promised.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 16 Feb 2019, 11:21

Good overview but the T45 is still one of the best, if not THE best AAW Destroyers in the world. :thumbup:

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2385
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 16 Feb 2019, 11:36

And yet for all the media hysteria, has it ever caused one to miss deployment? Has it dropped thier availability below operational level?

No, and no.

The only one that ever missed deployment was due to a propeller issue, completely unrelated.

It's just tabloids being tabloids. There are problems that need addressed, and one can argue they thus cost more than they should, but making out that they're complete lemons with a hopeless propulsion is just daft.

matt00773
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby matt00773 » 16 Feb 2019, 12:07

NickC wrote:MOD/RN were seduced by the promise of the next great leap forward with the GT by using an intercooler and recuperator that would deliver low specific fuel consumption across the engine's operating range. Not only did MOD fund this leap forward, but not with a low power GT for proof of concept but took the fateful decision to fund the full fat Westinghouse/Rolls Royce 25MW WR-21.
The problem with the WR-21 development was that it was done as a MOD project and not through industry i.e. Rolls Royce. They didn't have the experience or resources to put into place all the testing and design rigour that was required. When a WR-21 redesign (recuperator) was required halfway through testing, MOD made the decision that restarting the test was unnecessary and many issues were not discovered until it went operational.

Nevertheless, sticking with this innovative power system will be worth it. Its still the most advanced engine of its type and it has many benefits with performance, low emissions, and also low heat signature. My view on these types of developments is that you have to endure some pain to reap the benefits later. Think of 50s rocketry, 70s submarine pumpjets, and even the new EMALS system. Another thing to consider - the UK has two types of IEP systems for warships now - Type 45, QEC/Zumwalt.

Probably the best overview of the history of Type 45 IEP issues is in the article below:

https://www.rina.org.uk/Type_45_to_get_ ... blems.html

Edit: Added link to article on IEP for Type 45


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests