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
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1476
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 13 May 2019, 17:34

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Strategy without investment nor procurement policy is, almost nothing, I'm afraid. This is technical and industrial issues, and technology and industry is pretty much proportional to the money invested.

The strategy is completely separate from any individual investment decisions - that's how Governments work. Once a strategy or policy is formulated and adopted and until it is changed, all future investment decisions that fall within the remit of the policy have to comply with the policy. 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. 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, of course ;) so there will be an expense in that respect
The NSS uses two existing requirements, the T26 and T31 as examples (though the T26 has since been excluded from the NSS). This does not mean that the NSS is limited to those two projects or that those two projects ARE the NSS.

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). HMG seems to have chosen that path in recent years. Hopefully, in the light of experience, that will change. 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). ARM was a good example of that - a wholly British design bought out by a Japanese company, because they wanted the technology (which ARM had no intention of selling).

donald_of_tokyo wrote:H&W or A&P, doing offshore business is good. But it does not mean they retain "good" skills on ship building. Infrastructure needed for efficient ship building and for offshore infrastructure will not be the same. Training/skill will not be the same.

I do suggest that you take a detailed look through their websites, at the sort of work that they do (it's interesting reading, regardless). I think that you will find that it requires a very skilled workforce that designs and builds extremely complex marine structures (as well as ships), and also carries out major conversion and upgrade works. Freighters and passenger ships are pretty simple compared to offshore oil and gas platforms.

Since they are not specialist volume ship builders (any more) I would agree that efficiency will not be as high as the acknowledged leaders in the field, however both A&P and Cammell Laird are capable of building both complete ships and blocks for ships and would, I'm sure, be happy to focus on improving efficiency in that area if the need were there. Harland and Wolff may have further to go in respect of shipbuilding, but building large specialised blocks is a standard part of their business and I don't think it matters greatly whether they end up attached to a ship or an oil production platform.

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

Poiuytrewq wrote:it will make virtually no sense to sell them cheap at the 15 year point.

That's because the NSS is about sustaining naval shipbuilding as a sovereign capability, not about building the T31. It recognises that you need to keep building to a sustainable "drum beat" in order to keep the designers in practice and the yards occupied. There is a cost to that, which needs to be recognised. This point illustrates the cost well. The French have another model, which involves selling ships off the stocks for less than cost price - this pays to keep workers busy who would otherwise stand idle, claiming benefits and gradually losing their skills.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3049
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 14 May 2019, 01:52

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.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 May 2019, 07:09

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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 May 2019, 07:32

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.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 14 May 2019, 07:46

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.
@LandSharkUK

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 14 May 2019, 08:25

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.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 14 May 2019, 08:41

FREMM cost's around €1,000m/unit @ 2028 prices.
FTI will cost around €760/unit @ 2028 prices.

Not insignificant.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3049
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 14 May 2019, 10:03

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.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 14 May 2019, 10:44

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?
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 14 May 2019, 11:47

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.)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 May 2019, 19:04

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?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 May 2019, 14:32

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.

albedo
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby albedo » 15 May 2019, 15:22

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).

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 15 May 2019, 16:39

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/
"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
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 May 2019, 16:54

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....

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 May 2019, 16:57

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.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 15 May 2019, 19:40

About foreign escort ships being a part of British carrier battle group:

https://navaltoday.com/2019/05/14/spani ... of-hormuz/
:think:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1476
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 15 May 2019, 19:54

Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate operating as a carrier escort (alongside British and Portugese ships). Pushing the A140?

https://navaltoday.com/2019/02/20/danish-frigate-gets-underway-for-deployment-with-french-aircraft-carrier/
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1476
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 15 May 2019, 20:07

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
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 15 May 2019, 22:13

Perhaps some sense is coming... if that’s the case Arrowhead is dead.

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

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1476
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 15 May 2019, 22:31

Repulse wrote:Perhaps some sense is coming... if that’s the case Arrowhead is dead.

Why?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3049
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 May 2019, 00:45

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.

inch
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby inch » 16 May 2019, 07:09

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 ?

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1476
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 16 May 2019, 07:39

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.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 16 May 2019, 08:19

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.
@LandSharkUK


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Tempest414 and 23 guests