UK Defence Forum

Poiuytrewq wrote:

Repulse wrote:A bit more info on Appledore - from the comments doesn’t look T31 related.

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/20 ... -shipyard/

Great news but what are they going to build?

I'd like to see them build BMT Venari, of course there's the money thing...

What are the options?

1) Babcock build some T31 blocks there, maybe?

2) LSS conversions? Probably too small for that, I guess?

3) FSS? Again, too small, but maybe some of the blocks?

4) Gibraltar squadron replacements? Small, and only 2 of them....

5) River batch 2 improved lethality work?

6) anything else?

I can't see much there unless the UK Gov and/or RN is considering a serious uplift and investment in UK shipbuilding. Maybe:

7) a hospital ship?

dmereifield wrote:4) Gibraltar squadron replacements? Small, and only 2 of them....

Given the procurement requirement the Gibraltar squadron replacements. The large range increase, speed , armament and operational requirement they could be between 30 - 45+ metre length. Built to patrol craft Lloyds naval standards. They wont be as small as the present squadron vessels. It would also fit in with the out of service dates.

S M H wrote:

dmereifield wrote:4) Gibraltar squadron replacements? Small, and only 2 of them....

Given the procurement requirement the Gibraltar squadron replacements. The large range increase, speed , armament and operational requirement they could be between 30 - 45+ metre length. Built to patrol craft Lloyds naval standards. They wont be as small as the present squadron vessels. It would also fit in with the out of service dates.

Interesting. The programme to replace the Scimitar class seems to have gone quiet, do we know anything more about timeframes and budgets?

Difficult to guess what pipeline of work they have in mind, but thought the following wording from Geoffrey Cox was interesting:

Appledore has a unique place in the shipbuilding industry. Its yard is brilliantly suited to producing the kind of small and medium vessels, off shore patrol vessels particularly, that are now in demand around the world.

This suggests to me that the pipeline isn’t T31 related or anything larger.

The boats/ships for the Gibraltar Squadron is interesting and I’d argue that if the design is more flexible has use beyond that into other similar straights such as the Gulf, Malacca or even the in the Littoral sphere which would justify another order.

Another option would be a foreign order for OPVs like the Irish.

It could also be an order of Patrol ships for the boarder force or another agency of course.

Moving increasingly into fantasy, a new order of OPVs for the RN is possible to replace the B1s, but feels a little way away to be a reason to reopen now, as does a future MHPC.

Ultimately, moving really into fantasy land, I would like the RN to look at an unmanned ASW consort similar to the Sea Hunter - this kind of specialism is where a Appledore could really shine globally.

Regarding the Gibraltar Sqn, one possible design is the 19m version of the Barracuda from Safehaven Marine.

(see http://www.gibraltarpanorama.gi/163090 and https://www.safehavenmarine.com/barracuda-19m)

Safehaven Marine also have designs for the Barracuda in the 11-13m size, that would fit within the T26 mission bay.
https://www.safehavenmarine.com/single- ... VEN-MARINE

Safehaven are based in Cork, Ireland. Could they be tempted to use the Appledore yard, with an order for Gib Sqn, some T26 boats and maybe even P2000 Archer class replacement?

Aethulwulf wrote: Safehaven are based in Cork, Ireland. Could they be tempted to use the Appledore yard, with an order for Gib Sqn, some T26 boats and maybe even P2000 Archer class replacement?

Maybe, but it will take a lot more than a few patrol boat orders to encourage any company to sign the lease and reopen Appledore.

If HMG want this to happen it's time for some serious investment, not just meetings, press releases and political soundbites.

Fingers crossed.

Looking at the new Finnish Pohjanmaa four class 'corvettes' in build ~Euro 1.3B/£1.15B/4 = ~£288M each (triggered by contract award to Saab Thursday). Compared to T31 Pohjanmaa budget approx 15% higher if comparing apples apples figures and with no detailed breakdown could be questionable, A shorter range ship as will be operating mainly in Baltic, but otherwise very fully equipped with sensors and weapons, eg both S and X band radars, no FFBNW, might argue light on CIWS, but 57mm gun has the use of the sophisticated and popular CEROS 200 FCR and optronic director.

Pohjanmaa 3,900t, similar displacement to the BAE/CL T31 Leander proposal, 114 x 16m, range ~3,500 nm, speed 26 knots+, crew 70

Saab Pohjanmaa contract, Euro 412 million for four ship sets
CMS 9LV, radars Sea Giraffe 4A GaN long range S-band fixed face arrays, Sea Giraffe 1X GaN short range X-band rotating lightweight, 300 kg, array, Ceros 200 FCR with its high definition Ku-band and electro-optical director, Naval Laser Warning System, TactiCall integrated communication system, 2x Trackfire Remote Weapon Station for Russian 12.7mm heavy machine guns, Saab’s new gen digital lightweight torpedo for blue water and the more demanding complex environment of the shallow Baltic Sea.

Rheinmetall will supply the MASS (Multi Ammunition Softkill System)
BAE/Bofors 57mm main gun
Raytheon ESSM AAW missiles with the Mk41 VLS, chosen in preference to Sea Ceptor
Israeli Gabriel AShM, chosen in preference to NSM, Harpoon, Exocet and RBS15
Pohjanmaa has mine deck, supplier of mines unknown
A variable depth sonar (Kongsberg ST2400?) 
Electronic intelligence devices supplier unknown

Should have mentioned no helicopter flight deck/hanger as well as the limited CIWS.

NickC wrote:Should have mentioned no helicopter flight deck/hanger as well as the limited CIWS.

https://corporalfrisk.files.wordpress.c ... .jpg?w=640 the image clearly shows how the CIWS has been traded for a helo deck+ hangar
... the design grew quite a bit (may not have been the only reason; as for the SAMs installation they will be the samllest ships with the type chosen)

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Postby Poiuytrewq » 28 Sep 2019, 11:03

Around £350m to £375m is the sweet spot for the T31 to make it a credible GP Frigate. Still excellent value for money in that price range.

I moved over here from the T-26 thread

I agree the sweet spot is 350m but I think type 31 will end up at 310 per ship by the time a few extras are added

Tempest414 wrote:I agree the sweet spot is 350m but I think type 31 will end up at 310 per ship by the time a few extras are added

I will be amazed if can be built as claimed for £250m but Babcock are certain they can. Time will tell.

What are you identifying as priorities for the extra £60m?

That amount would supply the Mk45 and auto mag although CMS intergation costs are difficult to quantify.

As an alternative, an extra £60m would probably give the T31 an ASW capability roughly comparable to the FTI.

It's a question of priorities but ideally it needs to be an extra £120m and fit both. Still remarkable value for the UK taxpayer, even at £370m.

Poiuytrewq wrote: That amount would supply the Mk45 and auto mag although CMS intergation costs are difficult to quantify.

As an alternative, an extra £60m would probably give the T31 an ASW capability roughly comparable to the FTI.

It's a question of priorities but ideally it needs to be an extra £120m and fit both.

With flexibility of (and room for) fitting-out option (= a fact)
and
enough numbers (remains to be decided)
we can steer the fleet mix as the likeliest threats change/ emerge.

Quite a change from having to start a design for a new class - and getting the first in water 20 years later, when the situation will have changed many time over.

Poiuytrewq wrote:I will be amazed if can be built as claimed for £250m but Babcock are certain they can. Time will tell.

What are you identifying as priorities for the extra £60m?

That amount would supply the Mk45 and auto mag although CMS intergation costs are difficult to quantify.

As an alternative, an extra £60m would probably give the T31 an ASW capability roughly comparable to the FTI.

It's a question of priorities but ideally it needs to be an extra £120m and fit both. Still remarkable value for the UK taxpayer, even at £370m.

I see the extra 60 million per ship like this 20 million on the build and 40 million on a HMS plus FFBNW stuff like Phalanx and I-SSGW and so on

For me if these ships enter service like so

Good 3D radar
Good CMS
Good HMS
Good decoy system
1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 4 x HMG/ Miniguns plus the ability to bolt on 2 x Phalanx and I-SSGW if needed

I think we will be in a really good place

Tempest414 wrote:Good 3D radar
Good CMS
Good HMS
Good decoy system
1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 4 x HMG/ Miniguns plus the ability to bolt on 2 x Phalanx and I-SSGW if needed

I think we will be in a really good place

Leaving the 57/76mm debate to one side, I think what you propose is eminently realistic.

Unless you are proposing actually purchasing 10 additional Phalanx units then it probably wouldn't cost an extra £60m per hull.

Still can't reconcile the fact that if the T31 is adopted as proposed RN will have the 20mm, 20mm Phalanx, 30mm, 40mm, 57mm, 114mm and 127mm.

I think it's fair to suggest that the above list needs cut in half asap. It would be a logistical nightmare.

Poiuytrewq wrote:Unless you are proposing actually purchasing 10 additional Phalanx units then it probably wouldn't cost an extra £60m per hull.

Still can't reconcile the fact that if the T31 is adopted as proposed RN will have the 20mm, 20mm Phalanx, 30mm, 40mm, 57mm, 114mm and 127mm.

I think it's fair to suggest that the above list needs cut in half asap. It would be a logistical nightmare.

No the Phalanx's would come from the pool as for cutting the gun types down this is why my vote is for 76mm and I would go for fitting like so

Type 45 and 31 = 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 4 x HMG
Type 26 = 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 4 x HMG
River class 1 x 40mm , 4 x HMG

the rest of the fleet and RFA would carry on with the 30mm and Phalanx until replacement of the MCM and Echo's with MHC when they to would move to 40mm

giving us 127mm , 76mm , 40mm , 30mm & Phalanx

All this talk of “just another £60mn per vessel” is a classic death by a thousand cuts discussion, as that £300mn has to come from somewhere else, and makes the chance of getting more T31s ever slimmer.

Babcock have said they can, and will be contracted to build 5 to the RN spec at £250mn each and I for one will expect them to do it day one.

By all means let’s discuss over time (after they have entered service) how to improve them, but if scope creep comes in before a single piece of steel is cut then we wouldn’t have learnt anything.

Tempest414 wrote:Type 45 and 31 = 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 4 x HMG
Type 26 = 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 4 x HMG
River class 1 x 40mm , 4 x HMG

the rest of the fleet and RFA would carry on with the 30mm and Phalanx until replacement of the MCM and Echo's with MHC when they to would move to 40mm

We already have the 30mm and it does the job it is intended for.

The ultimate Phalanx replacement will be a laser based system.

There is no reason to chose the 40mm over the 57mm which is superior in every way - put it on the Rivers and future MH(P)Cs - but the T45s and T31s should be 127mm.

Repulse wrote:All this talk of “just another £60mn per vessel” is a classic death by a thousand cuts discussion, as that £300mn has to come from somewhere else, and makes the chance of getting more T31s ever slimmer.

I am not saying just add another 60 million I am saying they will end up costing 300 to 310 million each

Repulse wrote:Babcock have said they can, and will be contracted to build 5 to the RN spec at £250mn each and I for one will expect them to do it day one.

By all means let’s discuss over time (after they have entered service) how to improve them, but if scope creep comes in before a single piece of steel is cut then we wouldn’t have learnt anything.

I am also happy that Babcock's can deliver what they say they can with in the 250 million I just don't the MOD can stop them self playing around and old habits will die hard

Changes before a contract is signed are fine, provided they can be afforded.

Changes after the contract has been signed are the real killer, which MOD needs to avoid if at all possible.

Repulse wrote:The ultimate Phalanx replacement will be a laser based system.

I have no problem with this but until then Phalanx will keep going

Repulse wrote:There is no reason to chose the 40mm over the 57mm which is superior in every way - put it on the Rivers and future MH(P)Cs - but the T45s and T31s should be 127mm.

I just see 40mm coming in as it gives all round better defence over the 30mm . I have no problem 57mm in fact I like it and if type 31 comes in with 57mm I will be more than OK with it

Here is no hope of Type 45 & 31 getting 127mm it is not going to happen it is more likely that what ever T-31 comes in with T-45 will end up with

Tempest414 wrote:I just don't the MOD can stop them self playing around and old habits will die hard

One of the basic points of the NSS is to stop the customer "playing around". Once the order is placed, that's it - no changes allowed. The contract is fixed price for a reason - Babcocks will build what was ordered. Changes come in future batches or as part of a refit, with its own budget. The Danes showed that "spiral development" can work effectively.

On Babcock's ability to deliver on budget. Let's review what we know. They have a fully-documented and costed build process from the original builders, complete with details of the optimisations discovered as part of the original build process (and of course the previous build of the Absolon class). They have re-costed the entire process based on the original documentation. They have minimised risk by changing as little as possible from the original build so that they can simply buy and fit the latest variants of each module and sub-assembly from suppliers who already know the costs of of their products. All integration issues have also been documented - there are very few unknowns in this build. The A140 hull is based on a hull (Iver Huitfeldt via Absolon) that was designed to be cheap to build and which was itself supposedly based on a civilian hull designed to be cheap to build (by Maersk, IIRC).

I would say that they are in with a decent chance, wouldn't you?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

NickC wrote:Should have mentioned no helicopter flight deck/hanger as well as the limited CIWS.

https://corporalfrisk.files.wordpress.c ... .jpg?w=640 the image clearly shows how the CIWS has been traded for a helo deck+ hangar
... the design grew quite a bit (may not have been the only reason; as for the SAMs installation they will be the samllest ships with the type chosen)

Thanks for update, info and pic

Caribbean wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:I just don't the MOD can stop them self playing around and old habits will die hard

One of the basic points of the NSS is to stop the customer "playing around". Once the order is placed, that's it - no changes allowed. The contract is fixed price for a reason - Babcocks will build what was ordered. Changes come in future batches or as part of a refit, with its own budget. The Danes showed that "spiral development" can work effectively.

On Babcock's ability to deliver on budget. Let's review what we know. They have a fully-documented and costed build process from the original builders, complete with details of the optimisations discovered as part of the original build process (and of course the previous build of the Absolon class). They have re-costed the entire process based on the original documentation. They have minimised risk by changing as little as possible from the original build so that they can simply buy and fit the latest variants of each module and sub-assembly from suppliers who already know the costs of of their products. All integration issues have also been documented - there are very few unknowns in this build. The A140 hull is based on a hull (Iver Huitfeldt via Absolon) that was designed to be cheap to build and which was itself supposedly based on a civilian hull designed to be cheap to build (by Maersk, IIRC).

I would say that they are in with a decent chance, wouldn't you?

Yes and no. The list resembles that of successful projects, but I also know many projects (not on ship building, but on other complex systems development field, which I live in) went wrong even with such good documentations.

Looks promising, but still the fact remains that this is the first escort built by Babcock. Many "first" for Babcock. So, anything can happen. This is my standpoint.

Tempest414 wrote:

Repulse wrote:The ultimate Phalanx replacement will be a laser based system.

I have no problem with this but until then Phalanx will keep going

Repulse wrote:There is no reason to chose the 40mm over the 57mm which is superior in every way - put it on the Rivers and future MH(P)Cs - but the T45s and T31s should be 127mm.

Mention of lasers as a CIWS, ie replacing Phalanx/Millennium etc., colour me sceptical about lasers, believe in the old R&D laser adage "These are weapon systems of the future and always will be". I don't understand the massive hype of lasers when as yet no realistic trials taken place to prove they have any operational capability in all weathers.

Atmosphere weakens and distorts the beam, rain, snow, fog, smoke, high humidity, lasers become ineffective. The Laser range/energy is limited because particles in the air reflect, scatter with thermal blooming, turbulence, and molecular/aerosol absorption and scattering and so distort the laser beam energy, even on a clear day let alone in the high humidity of the Persian Gulf with its high water vapor and aerosol content.

Laser beams spread, at a distance of 1km say a laser with a 0.25 milliradian spot would have a dia of approx 250mm, at 5 km the beam would spread to 1.25 meters and at 10 km the beam would be 2.5 m, so for laser to be effective you will need high to massive power the longer the range.

Lasers must maintain a very precise spot on a moving target for number seconds depending on power to burn through, hit to kill, aircraft and missiles move/bounce up and down in the atmosphere and make it very difficult for the laser spot to keep to the very precise point of aim necessary to burn through for a HTK.

You will need a very, very precise high definition fire control radar, a very precise/instantaneous reacting laser mounting system with very powerful computer system to make use of all the data to give the very high degree accuracy needed from a moving and bouncing ship to a moving and bouncing target, costs will explode as you reach for the necessary last 'nth' degree of accuracy required.

PS If AShM attacking head on and the missile radome made of ceramics you have a problem, ceramics don’t efficiently absorb light, instead, they're actually really good at scattering light.