UK Defence Forum

donald_of_tokyo wrote:(if not, T45 cost must not include PAAMS cost, which is not)

But it does. As quoted by HMG, T45 UPC contains cost of PAAMs per ship and T45 R&D includes cost of PAAMS development.

In fact it was the cost overrun on PAAMS development that was used by Geo Brown as an excuse to cancel T45's 7 & 8.

Ron5 wrote:

JohnM wrote:The way I read it, the £640 million would be just the construction costs, much is the same way the actual construction costs of the T31s is $250 million... then you have to add everything else (GFE, etc.). Wouldn't be surprised is the final cost of the 5 T26 Batch 2 would be close to £700-750 million...

What are you assuming for GFX and additional costs?

Most of the extra in the T31 program is for CAMM which is not a GFX for the T26, the construction/modification of shore facilities, and of FOC testing. None of these would apply to additional T26's.

The Mk-41 VLSs and the main gun, for example, were bought directly by HMG, weren’t they? Or am I wrong? If they were, that’s an additional cost to the supposed £640 million for Batch 2… glad to be corrected…

JohnM wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

JohnM wrote:The way I read it, the £640 million would be just the construction costs, much is the same way the actual construction costs of the T31s is $250 million... then you have to add everything else (GFE, etc.). Wouldn't be surprised is the final cost of the 5 T26 Batch 2 would be close to £700-750 million...

What are you assuming for GFX and additional costs?

Most of the extra in the T31 program is for CAMM which is not a GFX for the T26, the construction/modification of shore facilities, and of FOC testing. None of these would apply to additional T26's.

The Mk-41 VLSs and the main gun, for example, were bought directly by HMG, weren’t they? Or am I wrong? If they were, that’s an additional cost to the supposed £640 million for Batch 2… glad to be corrected…

Good question. I don't know

Ron5 wrote:

JohnM wrote:The Mk-41 VLSs and the main gun, for example, were bought directly by HMG, weren’t they? Or am I wrong? If they were, that’s an additional cost to the supposed £640 million for Batch 2… glad to be corrected…

Good question. I don't know

Although just a guest,
- main gun contract (July 2016) was before the 3 initial T26 contract (Jul 2017), and on the latter contract timing, it is said that the £3,7B includes the early acquired equipment costs.
- Mk.41 VLS was contacted by BAE from LM: " ... Warship-builder BAE Systems has signed up Lockheed Martin to deliver Mk 41s for the first three of the anti-submarine warfare frigates it has under contract...." (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... -launcher/)

So, I think it is natural to think they are included.

Thank you Donald-san

Certainly through life costs are not considered as much as they should. That said I have seen them influence decisions, and even be the deciding factor

Just to clarify some of these apples with oranges comparisons and horse trading. The figures from the NAO in their latest defence report as discussed at the Public Accounts Committee this week are are as follows:

Budgeted whole-life cost as at March 2021 (£m)

Type 26 (8 ships) 21,648 (£21.6bn) >> £2,683m per ship

Type 31 (5 ships) 2,031 (£2bn) >> £406m per ship

So that's over 6 and a half T31s for each Type 26.

Enigmatically wrote:Certainly through life costs are not considered as much as they should. That said I have seen them influence decisions, and even be the deciding factor

Hang on doesn't the treasury require all investment appraisals to be carried out on a long term basis; e.g. 25 years of life rather than just on procurement cost!

Ron5 wrote:No it doesn't!! There's no extra development & design for an extra 3 T26's so a contract for them would be 3 time 640 million plus initial maintenance. No R&D!

Well - I would certainly do better as an accountant than you! The marginal cost of three extra T26 would be £1920 million, but the overall cost (i.e. program cost) per hull would be £758 million (i.e variable cost + fixed costs/ number of hulls). That assumes, of course, that the entire £1.3b is fixed costs, which it may not be. We are talking about two different views of the same thing.

Ron5 wrote:be modified to be as quiet as a T26

Setting up your strawman, eh, Ron. No-one said that it would be as quiet as a T26 - quite the opposite. The point was more whether it would be quiet enough to do the job (which involves sitting in close proximity to a rather noisy aircraft carrier).

Caribbean wrote:Well - I would certainly do better as an accountant than you! The marginal cost of three extra T26 would be £1920 million, but the overall cost (i.e. program cost) per hull would be £758 million (i.e variable cost + fixed costs/ number of hulls). That assumes, of course, that the entire £1.3b is fixed costs, which it may not be. We are talking about two different views of the same thing.

Still talking out of your ass. If they ordered three more T26 (which was the point under discussion) they would only have to budget for build cost and not for R&D. So 2 billion for all three. Not 3 times 738 million.

In other words, amortizing R&D over a production run is purely an accountants view of the world, it does not translate to going forward costs.

Caribbean wrote:Setting up your strawman, eh, Ron. No-one said that it would be as quiet as a T26 - quite the opposite. The point was more whether it would be quiet enough to do the job (which involves sitting in close proximity to a rather noisy aircraft carrier).

I don't know what this means.

I was just offering an opinion that if the navy was in the market for a 2nd class ASW escort, I think it would be easier to start with a t26 and dumb it down rather than start with a T31 and make it smarter.

It's easier to make a fast car go slow that it is to make a slow car go fast.

Latest from HMS Glasgow.....







Wonder if the bird is also called Bob?

She does look quite a chunky monkey. Not the deceivingly sleek lines of the T45.

Funding allocated for next batch of T26 :=

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/funding ... -frigates/

jonas wrote:Funding allocated for next batch of T26 :=

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/funding ... -frigates/

I'm not sure why this drew a headline and article. Didn't we all know that a budget line existed for the batch 2? And that it would be subject to any and all review up until the point it's committed via contract?

Ron5 wrote:

jonas wrote:Funding allocated for next batch of T26 :=

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/funding ... -frigates/

I'm not sure why this drew a headline and article. Didn't we all know that a budget line existed for the batch 2? And that it would be subject to any and all review up until the point it's committed via contract?

Perhaps not everyone is as well informed as yourself Ron.

Ron5 wrote:I'm not sure why this drew a headline and article.

Just about every written answer attracts a headline and article. It's UKDJ.

Having said that I totally understand their personal motivation on this one. UKDJ is produced by Glasgow-based supporters of the union who cop intense flak from Scot Nats, and this a mother of an emotive subject in that particular neck of the woods.

Updates on the Type 26, 31 & 32 frigates. There's a few typos in the article so don't get carried away

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... me-update/

If funding has been allocated it would be nice to know how much and when

Ron5 wrote:

jonas wrote:Funding allocated for next batch of T26 :=
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/funding ... -frigates/

I'm not sure why this drew a headline and article. Didn't we all know that a budget line existed for the batch 2? And that it would be subject to any and all review up until the point it's committed via contract?

Always, confirmation is good. It at least means the program is not silently killed yet.

Another view of HMS Glasgow............

Newest Picture I could find here....

That picture sums up what’s wrong with the Clyde - half million pound waterfront apartments within five hundred meters of a shipyard. We had this in Australia it was called Williamstown, the aussies were sensible enough to close it down and build greenfield

And that was how Liverpool lost its UNESCO status...

bobp wrote:Another view of HMS Glasgow............

Would note that this is not new, Iver Huitfeldt class design uses shock protected "islands" able to absorb impacts for mounting its sensitive electronic kit and presumably same used on the T31.