UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

Which Anti-Ship Missile Should be Selected for the Type 26?

Lockheed Martin LRASM
147
52%
Kongsberg NSM
64
23%
Boeing Harpoon Next Gen
43
15%
MBDA Exocet Blk III
19
7%
None (stick to guided ammo and FASGW from Helicopters)
8
3%
 
Total votes: 281

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5998
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby shark bait » 01 Jul 2020, 09:00

Ron5 wrote:A survey not long ago revealed ASW specialist designs attracted a 25% premium.

And after a production run of 8 ships you'll have knocked 30% of the build cost.
@LandSharkUK

NickC
Member
Posts: 661
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby NickC » 01 Jul 2020, 10:03

shark bait wrote:
Ron5 wrote:A survey not long ago revealed ASW specialist designs attracted a 25% premium.

And after a production run of 8 ships you'll have knocked 30% of the build cost.



30% seems optimistic, any example you could reference to support that figure and if accurate would it not apply equally to standard ship eg T31/IH?, don't know what percentage of shipyard costs bought in, say ~50%?, can't see RR giving a 30% discount on future buys of MT30 or MTU DGs etc, if the shipyard only accounts for 50% of costs, that 30% saving on total build costs would mean shipyard would have to reduce its costs by ~60% !

If remember N-a-B who posts on SavetheRN and life time experience in industry think mentioned figure less than 10% saving after first three ships and thereafter not much movement.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5998
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby shark bait » 01 Jul 2020, 11:48

That's the theory;

Saving=1*A^(LOG(B)/LOG(2))
Where units A = 8 and learning rate B = 0.9

Plug the numbers in and you get 0.73

Plug in 3 years and you get roughly what your mate said.
@LandSharkUK

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1896
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Caribbean » 01 Jul 2020, 12:10

NickC wrote:If remember N-a-B who posts on SavetheRN and life time experience in industry think mentioned figure less than 10% saving after first three ships and thereafter not much movement.

IIRC NaB said approx 10% per build for the first 3 builds was "normal".
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1480
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby SW1 » 01 Jul 2020, 13:35

The formula clearly doesn’t work so well for submarines.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4236
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 01 Jul 2020, 15:43

It's also totally irrelevant, whether its 0%, 10%, 30% or 50%, the result will still be 25% higher for an ASW specialist escort.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4236
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 01 Jul 2020, 15:44

SW1 wrote:The formula clearly doesn’t work so well for submarines.


Nothing to do with submarines. It doesn't work with the UK Treasury's imposed constant "drumbeat" which ensures each ship in a class costs the same to build (plus inflation). So it won't work with UK T26 either. It's financial dumbassery imposed by the dumbassest financial department in the western world.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 966
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Aethulwulf » 02 Jul 2020, 18:40

Australian shipbuilder pushes back against reports of frigate design concerns

The builder of the Royal Australian Navy’s new Hunter-class frigates has told Defense News that the ship’s design remains “within agreed weight and space envelopes,” despite a recent report in Australian media claiming recent changes have caused concern. ASC Shipbuilding was responding to a June 26 story in the Australian Financial Review that said growth in the ship design’s weight and length is “sparking concerns.” But ASC Shipbuilding Managing Director Craig Lockhart said Thursday the company remained confident in its ability to meet Australia’s capability requirements and specifications. "ASC Shipbuilding is going through the normal naval design process for the Hunter-class frigate and is working collaboratively with the [Australian Defence Department’s] Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group and the Royal Australian Navy to design a ship that meets Australia’s capability and performance requirements,” Lockhart said.

“Contrary to the suggestion made in the article, Hunter is not being redesigned, but instead our team is right in the middle of a normal naval ship design process for Hunter,” he added. “Importantly, the design activities being undertaken remain within the agreed weight and space envelopes for Hunter, and we remain confident in our ability to meet the capability requirements and specifications for the commonwealth on time and on budget.”

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/02/australian-shipbuilder-pushes-back-against-reports-of-frigate-design-concerns/

NickC
Member
Posts: 661
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby NickC » 03 Jul 2020, 10:06

I'm slightly surprised the T26 design can take the growth to ~10,000t for Hunter, the same as Burke Flight IIA destroyer with its 96 VLS cells, with no problems, BAE quote T26 as 6,900t and as mentioned before BAE do not state whether their figure is light, standard or full load displacement.

My assumption BAE/MoD/RN by deliberatly not stating type of displacement in the past (and now too embarresed to reveal true figure) appear to have intentionally tried to hoodwink the Treasury on size/cost of ship but it only resulted in the procurement cut from thirteen to possible eight and five T31s.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4236
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 03 Jul 2020, 15:50

NickC wrote:I'm slightly surprised the T26 design can take the growth to ~10,000t for Hunter, the same as Burke Flight IIA destroyer with its 96 VLS cells, with no problems, BAE quote T26 as 6,900t and as mentioned before BAE do not state whether their figure is light, standard or full load displacement.

My assumption BAE/MoD/RN by deliberatly not stating type of displacement in the past (and now too embarresed to reveal true figure) appear to have intentionally tried to hoodwink the Treasury on size/cost of ship but it only resulted in the procurement cut from thirteen to possible eight and five T31s.


It was the cost of the T26 program that reduced their number to 8, not their displacement. Pretty sure the entire world and their dog are clear on that point.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4295
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Jul 2020, 19:27

Well take out the Mission Bay have I guess you could install a shed load more MK41s etc.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests