Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Posted: 30 Oct 2019, 20:39
I have little faith in the NSS. Unless such a document is legally binding to successive Governments it is really only a letter of intent.
News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
ArmChairCivvy wrote:turning the surface ships construction prgrm from a forecast into a plan
Ahh, that sits in the middle of the continuum, so we have moved on from the glass half full/emptyLord Jim wrote: is really only a letter of intent.
What strategy? The one started in 2015 has already been trashed.Lord Jim wrote:actively supports the NSS
RN increases 220 person on Fisheries Protection Squadron to keep the 3 River B1 (and handle 5th River B2, I guess?).Repulse wrote:Read an interview in the recent Guide to the Royal Navy 2020 from Cdr Simon Pressdee (head of the Fisheries Protection Squadron) who announced that the force was increasing from 260 to 480 people. On the face of it enough to man all 5 B2s OPVs and the current force. Not sure where all these people have come from though.... anyone have anymore info?
Once again, not all of the 1400 shortfall relates to sea-going crews, especially as the RN has been pushing to fill the sea-going shortages first. (hence the 1SLs statement that the crew shortage was almost solved, some months ago). Moving more to the Fisheries Squadron looks more like keeping the training pipeline going and giving crew more time at sea, while waiting for the T23's and T45s to get through refits and repairsdonald_of_tokyo wrote:As the "full-time trained crew" number is 1400 soul short
There’s nothing wrong with cost accounting if you know what you’re doing. I was trained by a German tier one automotive that judged capex based on Total Cost if Ownership over the project life. Pushing to the right increases total cost. It’s short termism that’s the problem.Scimitar54 wrote:Well it is up to all of us to make sure we do what we can to prevent "Cost Accounting" depriving the nation of the defence assets that it needs rather than Accounting for the "Value" of those same items.
However, it will stand out in your street, when parked on your driveway and nobody will see the pile of bricks.
:
Ummm, once again.Caribbean wrote:Once again, not all of the 1400 shortfall relates to sea-going crews, especially as the RN has been pushing to fill the sea-going shortages first. (hence the 1SLs statement that the crew shortage was almost solved, some months ago). Moving more to the Fisheries Squadron looks more like keeping the training pipeline going and giving crew more time at sea, while waiting for the T23's and T45s to get through refits and repairsdonald_of_tokyo wrote:As the "full-time trained crew" number is 1400 soul short
Thanks!NickC wrote:Looking at the new French FDI (Defense and Intervention Frigate) following the steel-cutting ceremony of the first ship October 24th., previously the FTI (Frégates de taille intermédiaire).
...
Leonardo 76mm MG, FCS Thales STIR EO Mk.2 both radar and electro-optic tracking systems, able to fire the guided DART round for AA.
Denmark, Sweden is now working to get there, S. Korea (ROK). Finland has a particular form of it: There is concensus for retaining the 1.6% of the GDP expenditure level or so, but the so called Strat. Projects (AF 60 or so fighters and Navy 4 corvettes/ light frigates that breach the convention that Blue Water - er, the Baltic is never blue - operations are unaffordable) will push the envelope to 2% for half a decadeSD67 wrote: this is always going to be difficult for a democratic government unless there’s a bipartisan national consensus on defence. We don’t have that in the UK so there always going to be a juggling act. In fact very few democracies outside the US have that - Australia, and who else?
Under 9 mths per ship, but factor in 35% concurrency and you get 13 mth build time. Even though:NickC wrote:The first FDI will be delivered to the French Navy in late 2023, second one is set for delivery before the end of 2025 and the last three FDIs are due to be delivered before 2030
would indicate a lot going on for many hulls before 2023; when the first will be hitting the water ?NickC wrote:high cost driven by having ~ 90+% French content, build time of 2 and a half years
Good point, it was my assumption as you noted not stated in NavalNews. The Thales FCR STIR EO Mk.2 radar and electro-optic tracking systems was quoted as fitted specifically to control the gun and would think be more than capable of controlling the DART, replacing the Leonardo on mount tracking/guidance radar, my assumption Thales have contract control of all electronic weapon systems fitted to the FDI, as T31, they would substitute their kit wherever possible, in this case Leonardo's ?donald_of_tokyo wrote:Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Unread postby donald_of_tokyo » 04 Nov 2019, 16:13
NickC wrote:
Looking at the new French FDI (Defense and Intervention Frigate) following the steel-cutting ceremony of the first ship October 24th., previously the FTI (Frégates de taille intermédiaire).
...
Leonardo 76mm MG, FCS Thales STIR EO Mk.2 both radar and electro-optic tracking systems, able to fire the guided DART round for AA.
Thanks!
By the way, are the 76mm gun of FDI, DART capable? At least, not written in the original article, I think? I understand DART need special turret with line-of-sight guidance radar to be adopted, with different shape from those adopted on French navies' ships.
The Sea Axe bow design different in concept and shape, developed by Damen and Delft UniversityRon5 wrote:Not the only personal assumption that crept into that comment.
e.g. the Sea Axe bow. Not for speed but for sea keeping.
Are you sure, the Sea Axe bow you quoted is designed for speed, the Associate Professor at the Delft University, Lex Keuning, explicity states he designed the new type of hull with the Sea Axe bow built to withstand more speed and Damen holds the exclusive license on the patent and developed the Sea Axe Patrol Vessels and Fast Crew Suppliers with great success.Ron5 wrote:Still not for speed dude. RCS reduction, seakeeping or looks: take your pick.
Excuse me, i dont mean to sound flippant , but how do you know that it's noisy?.....do you have a recording of its underwater signature?...well of course not because it doesn't exist yet, but how about a similar(ish) vessel with an equivalent propulsion setup ....like for instance the Iver Huitfeldt you mention yourself above ? .....Probably not though right.....NickC wrote:
Looks like a smaller Iver Huitfeldt class frigate at approx twice the cost, appears high cost driven by having ~ 90+% French content, build time of 2 and a half years, fully equipped GP frigate with AAW, AShM though its ASW ops limited by its noisy CODAD, reinforces my view that the T31 as currently funded/spec'd is a long range OPV.
From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... i-frigate/>
My thoughtsMikeKiloPapa wrote:Excuse me, i dont mean to sound flippant , but how do you know that it's noisy?.....do you have a recording of its underwater signature?...well of course not because it doesn't exist yet, but how about a similar(ish) vessel with an equivalent propulsion setup ....like for instance the Iver Huitfeldt you mention yourself above ? .....Probably not though right.....NickC wrote:
Looks like a smaller Iver Huitfeldt class frigate at approx twice the cost, appears high cost driven by having ~ 90+% French content, build time of 2 and a half years, fully equipped GP frigate with AAW, AShM though its ASW ops limited by its noisy CODAD, reinforces my view that the T31 as currently funded/spec'd is a long range OPV.
From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... i-frigate/>
Im willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that most if not all those banging on about "quiet this, noisy that" in relation to warships have never even heard another ship under water through hydrophones....yet act as if they were experts and summarily declares a ship unfit for ASW just based on a few paper stats....and it simply doesn't work that way irl.
Signature management and sound profiles isnt all or nothing.....just because a ship isnt the most quiet of all the quietest ships to graduate from the University of Silence doesn't mean that its useless at ASW. Just like a T23 wont suddenly become less capable just because its successor will (presumably) be even quieter.
Yes , an IH or the future FDI will not be as silent as a T23, T26, or FREMM but it might well be just as or more quiet than everything else out there. Even a pure diesel driven vessel can be effective at ASW, especially in the right environment and as part of a larger ASW force.
With the right hull, right machinery and especially the right propellers operated in ASW mode (high pitch low RPMs) a direct drive diesel can be surprisingly silent , and if you add a capable HMS, a VDS/TASS and an Merlin HM2 to the T31 you will get a warship every bit as capable at ASW as the T26 will be at air defence,if not more so.
These terms (abbreviations) throw me 'off the scent' as I am trying to look forNickC wrote:unloading the propeller tip decreases the noise disturbance of the water/cavitation by the propeller, but can reduce its efficiency. Type 26 uses an optimised FFP for this reason, whilst FREMM uses a CPP, as always a trade off as though FPP will be quieter at low ASW speeds, its less efficient than a CPP at higher speeds, lowers max speed.