UK Defence Forum

seaspear wrote:I hadn't read the above report before I posted in the forum concerning Australia but the concern would be for the Hobart class destroyers by Navantia

It could be a problem for the Canberra class as well which means if the RAN had gone for offering by Navantia over T-26 they could of had a real handful now

Tempest414 wrote:a real handful now

A straight hand ... but not quite the best possible straight flush?

Tempest414 wrote:

Poiuytrewq wrote:Could this have an impact the T31 programme? How does the watertight integrity of Leander compare with A120/A140?

It could have a big impact on the US frigate program when it comes to what is on the table

Absolutely, does this now make FREMM the favourite for FFG(X)?

X-post from Mexico thread.
-----------------------------------------
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... -navy.html

First of class 10514 frigate has been Launched.

The Mexican ship has a standard displacement of 2,575 tons, a length of 107.14 meters, a width of 14.08 meters and a draft of 3.75 meters. The two-shaft diesel-electric power plant (CODOE) includes two 9240 kW diesel engines, six 735 kW diesel generators and two electric motors. It has a maximum speed of 28 knots, economic 18 knots, low noise 14 knots. Its range is 5,000 nautical miles at economic speed, with an endurance of 20 days. Full fuel capacity is 300 tons. The crew consists of 122 sailors.

Weapon systems will include Boeing RGM-84L Harpoon Block II anti-ship missile launchers (most likely four), 8x VLS for ESSM, one Raytheon RAM launcher, one 57mm Mk 3 BAE Systems Bofors main gun, two 25mm Rafael Typhoon Mk 38 Mod 2 remotely-controlled artillery mounts, six 12.7mm M2 machine guns and two three-tube Mk 32 SVTT torpedo launchers for raytheon mk 54 mod 0. The hangar can accommodate an MH-60R Seahawk multipurpose (anti-submarine) helicopter. The ship is equipped with a Thales SMART-S Mk 2 radar, Raytheon Anschütz Synapsis navigation radar, a Thales Captas-2 towed sonar, Thales TACTICOS combat system and ERA Indra Rigel electronic warfare suite.
-----------------------------------------

Typical heavy-corvette or light-light frigate, and heavily armed. This is one of the rivals for T31e, in export market. T31e is larger with much more longer endurance (35 days), will be able to be equipped to the same level (including CAPTAS-2), and has a mission bay.

Good enough? Will depend on the cost.

Poiuytrewq wrote:Not good news for Navantia.

AIBN says they have found safety critical issues relating to HMoNS Helge Ingstad watertight compartmentsimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpg
https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968

Could there be potential implications for navies operating Navantia vessels across the globe like Australia? Bet the RAN are glad they went with the T26

Shows once again the importance of insisting on full naval standards even in peace time.

Could this have an impact the T31 programme? How does the watertight integrity of Leander compare with A120/A140?

How many hundreds of posts have there been on here along the lines of why-oh-why can't UK yards pump out frigates as cheaply as others do...

Well here's your answer chaps.

As others who know loads more than me have pointed out, just because it wins the top trumps battle on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it isn't made of blu tac...

How do we know the same issues arnt on the type45/26 or other rn ship classes or intact other ships anywhere ,I'm no expert and they probably wouldn't tell us if there is an issue after this incedent that other navy's/ship builders go hey chaps we might have a problem here ?

It might be a accident like in the Falklands war when things happened like overhead materials that all other navy's learnt from and changed designs with them new lassons in mind ?

can this fault be fixed yes will it cost yes the question is will it impacted FFG X and could this let type 26 back in to the game for the US

Just can't see t26 getting onto the shortlist tempest 414 for lots of reasons lots of other people have already said , might help the fremm design tho ,but as has been said lessons will be learned and the design could still be a winner with modification s

@Donald-san. The Mexican Damen 10514 comes with a sophisticated electric propulsion system with two 1325 kW Indar motors (Leander's motors only 700 kW) with two variable frequency drives with active front ends and smart filter techniques to mitigate the disturbance levels connected to the vessel’s power grid without the use of a transformer so saving big on weight, space and cost, could argue more advanced than the Type 26 as able dispense with the transformers.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Ron5 wrote:been suggested that Leander will take the sonar from the retiring T23's

This (once again ) brings in the cost, ie. how will the 1.25+ .25 bn total be affected (should the above happen).
- they won't come dirt cheap (that would be a result from straight-line depreciation, and resulting book value)
- as military inflation tends to be so high, there is something called Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC), to obtain which indices are used to revalue the asset (which then is followed by the "normal" depreciation calculation)

In the prgrm context the above is by no means limited to the sonar transfers, but is a universal principle

It's quite simple. The book value is the acquisition cost times the depreciation years left divided by the full depreciation life.

So if the kit costs $10m brand new and the usable life is set at 20 years, after 5 years the book value is $10m x 15/20 = $7.5m. After 10 years it is $5m and after 20 years, it is zero.

But, and it is a huge but, book value is not real money, it is not cash, it is an accountants concept. The real money, the cash, has already been spent.

So mixing up actual cash that will be spent and an accountant concept of "virtual cash" which is solely used to spread the budgetary hit by large infrequent purchases of capital equipment is a major no, no. But of course the MoD and Treasury do it all the time. The effect to to leave the impression that more money is being spent than actually is. It's fake news.

Way too premature to be coming to any conclusions on the Norwegian frigate collision. These are just preliminary findings, We need to hold our horses before slagging off on Navantia.

As for FREMM being a favorite for the USN, I'm still laughing. Not a hope in hell.

Tempest414 wrote:

seaspear wrote:I hadn't read the above report before I posted in the forum concerning Australia but the concern would be for the Hobart class destroyers by Navantia

It could be a problem for the Canberra class as well which means if the RAN had gone for offering by Navantia over T-26 they could of had a real handful now

Canberra propulsion is vis pods not prop tubes so hopefully fingers crossed no problems there, but their has been some nervousness about shock damage have yet to see a satisfactory answer to that one

Ron5 wrote:Way too premature to be coming to any conclusions on the Norwegian frigate collision. These are just preliminary findings, We need to hold our horses before slagging off on Navantia.

As for FREMM being a favorite for the USN, I'm still laughing. Not a hope in hell.

I have been wondering why everyone has been saying that the FREMM or Navantia designs have been the front runners in the FFGX program, the US is known for choosing domestic design and build so with several US designs in the running what makes people believe FREMM is now the front runner ?

For me I havd a feeling the freedom class derivative designed to a proper frigate standard ( not the LCS standard ) could pinch this.
My reasoning behind this line of thought is that 1 it's a US based design and 2 it could allow a PR opertunity to say that LCS program as a whole hasn't been a flop, in that spinning it in a away to say it's lead to a proper light frigate for the USN

Ron5 wrote:As for FREMM being a favorite for the USN, I'm still laughing. Not a hope in hell.

Who in your opinion is the favorite?

Personally I would like to see a Legend Class derivative win but maybe that's wishful thinking as I am a big fan of the design. Has Ingalls even confirmed which design they are putting forward yet?

Ron5 wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Ron5 wrote:been suggested that Leander will take the sonar from the retiring T23's

This (once again ) brings in the cost, ie. how will the 1.25+ .25 bn total be affected (should the above happen).
- they won't come dirt cheap (that would be a result from straight-line depreciation, and resulting book value)
- as military inflation tends to be so high, there is something called Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC), to obtain which indices are used to revalue the asset (which then is followed by the "normal" depreciation calculation)

In the prgrm context the above is by no means limited to the sonar transfers, but is a universal principle

It's quite simple. The book value is the acquisition cost times the depreciation years left divided by the full depreciation life.

So if the kit costs $10m brand new and the usable life is set at 20 years, after 5 years the book value is $10m x 15/20 = $7.5m. After 10 years it is $5m and after 20 years, it is zero.

But, and it is a huge but, book value is not real money, it is not cash, it is an accountants concept. The real money, the cash, has already been spent.

So mixing up actual cash that will be spent and an accountant concept of "virtual cash" which is solely used to spread the budgetary hit by large infrequent purchases of capital equipment is a major no, no. But of course the MoD and Treasury do it all the time. The effect to to leave the impression that more money is being spent than actually is. It's fake news.

Ron5 wrote: Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC)

I did my best, time to read the exam question again.

R686 wrote:Canberra propulsion is vis pods not prop tubes so hopefully fingers crossed no problems there, but their has been some nervousness about shock damage have yet to see a satisfactory answer to that one

Very popular with big ships, like cruise liners, getting into tight spaces.

But as you say: resistance to shock damage???

Jake1992 wrote:I havd a feeling the freedom class derivative designed to a proper frigate standard ( not the LCS standard ) could pinch this.
My reasoning behind this line of thought is that 1 it's a US based design

Should we discount the one which is not a US-based design?

Poiuytrewq wrote:would like to see a Legend Class derivative win but maybe that's wishful thinking as I am a big fan of the design.

Me too. Too many designs... too little time (so which one is it? We must have some cues).

By the time the FFX is chosen there will have been some serious mission creep, with the design becoming the AB's little brother, half the Mk41s, a better sonar, one helicopter plus a rotary UCAV, and with the best SPY radar that will fit on the platform.

to swing back to the RN given what we now know in light of HMS Duncan's visit by 17 Russian jets in the black sea should we be looking to swap out Aster 15 for CAMM and aim for a load out of 64 CAMM in 16 cells and 32 Aster 30

The Accident Investigation Board Norway (AIBN) has issued an immediate safety alert Appendix A to their 29 November 2018 PRELIMINARY MARINE ACCIDENT REPORT on the COLLISION BETWEEN THE FRIGATE 'KNM HELGE INGSTAD' AND THE OIL TANKER 'SOLA TS' ON 8 NOVEMBER 2018 as it has identified safety-critical issues with the Navantia built frigate relating to the vessel's watertight compartments.

"To start with, flooding occurred in three watertight compartments on board 'KNM Helge Ingstad': the aft generator room, the orlob deck's crew quarters and the stores room. There was some uncertainty as to whether the steering engine room, the aftmost compartment, was also filling up with water.

Based on this damage, the crew, supported by the vessel's stability documents, assessed the vessel as having 'poor stability' status, but that it could be kept afloat. If more compartments were flooded, the status would be assessed as 'vessel lost' on account of further loss of stability.

Next, the crew found that water from the aft generator room was running into the gear room via the hollow propeller shafts and that the gear room was filling up fast. From the gear room, the water then ran into and was flooding the aft and fore engine rooms via the stuffing boxes in the bulkheads. This meant that the flooding became substantially more extensive than indicated by the original damage.

Based on the flooding of the gear room, it was decided to prepare for evacuation. The AIBN considers the vessel's lack of watertight integrity to be a safety issue relating to Nansen-class frigates and therefore issues the following two safety alerts.//

The Accident Investigation Board Norway recommends that Navantia, the vessel's designer, conduct investigations into the issues identified during this initial investigation and to ascertain whether this is also an issue relating to other vessels. Furthermore, that Navantia issue a notification to relevant shipbuilding yards, owners and operators, advising on necessary measures to address safety"

Assume the Australian Navy burning some midnight oil checking out Navantia/Australian built Hobart frigates.

Appendix A – Safety alert, collision between the frigate 'KNM Helge Ingstad' and the
tanker 'Sola TS' on 8 November 2018, outside the Sture terminal in Hjeltefjorden in
Hordaland County 29th Nov. 2018

Tempest414 wrote:should we be looking to swap out Aster 15 for CAMM and aim for a load out of 64 CAMM in 16 cells and 32 Aster 30

Agreed, then the comment at the end "17 planes? We have 40 missiles... we win" would rest on a better foundation:
17 planes
each carrying 2 AShMs
... makes 51!

I understand "quad-packing" CAMM into Sylver VLS is NOT ready. It is "theoretically doable", but not yet funded/developed. On the other hand, adding CAMM to T45 is very important I agree. Adopting ExLS will be much better answer. It is already existing. All we need is just to pay for it (development cost).

If we see how Australian Navy's FFG-7 has added 32 ESSM, I think adding 24 or 48 CAMM with 3 or 6 cell ExLS on T45 is quite easy (say, around the bow or anywhere else). It is just a matter of money, which is not small but also not large.

Sea Ceptor's software has a big commonality with PAAMS system, so integration may also not be so difficult.

Tempest414 wrote:to swing back to the RN given what we now know in light of HMS Duncan's visit by 17 Russian jets in the black sea should we be looking to swap out Aster 15 for CAMM and aim for a load out of 64 CAMM in 16 cells and 32 Aster 30

I think it's a question of priorities.

With the budget squeaky tight in the T26 and T31 programmes, is upgrading the T45's really the best way to spend the available money? I would say getting 12 credible ASW escorts is a higher priority BUT if the budgetary situation was to improve I think releasing the T45's true potential is very important over the longer term. The T45 is a fantastic design but as with a lot of what RN does nowadays it looks like it could be another missed opportunity, mainly due to a lack of money. Ideally the T45's would be upgraded like the T23's have been over time but rectifying the propulsion issues is probably going to use up any money that could have been used for upgrades. Pity.

Going forward 48 Asters is looking a bit on the light side but happily CAMM can provide the solution. I think the big question is, where do you put them? Personally I would leave the Asters/Sylvers alone and look to add CAMM elsewhere.First things first if any alterations are to be made fitting the 16x Mk41 cells must be top priority

Giving the T45's a TLAM capability would finally give RN the platform that was originally envisaged. Possible locations for additional CAMM are an amidships silo which looks reasonably straightforward. The graphic above shows that up to 12x Mk41 may fit giving 96 CAMM. Even 8 additional cells would give an extra 32 CAMM which would be a useful boost but maybe 16 cells giving another 64 CAMM would be the optimum upgrade. The Mk41/Slyver cells are useful to illustrate the space available but it would of course be possible to go down the ExLS route. Another possible location could be in one of the boat bays adjacent to the hanger. This area of the T45 has lots of under-utilised space and this area is becoming a more popular location to fit VLS cells as seen in the Project Spartan T31 concept. With a more invasive refit the whole hanger mission space could be reconfigured to an Arleigh Burke type setup with the VLS cells in between twin hangers. The Type 45 is over a metre wider than the Arleigh Burke which would help but I think the radar reducing profile of the superstructure would be compromised to a certain extent. This option seems a bit extreme as the 64 cells could carry 256 CAMM if quad packed Personally I would fit the Mk41's forward of the Sylvers, giving the T45's a TLAM capability, and also add a 12 cell silo amidships for an additional 64 CAMM.

This would give the T45's,
48 Aster 15/30
64 CAMM
16 TLAM or ASROC

As I stated previously this is not a current priority in my opinion due to the precarious budget situation but if the finances were to improve I would look to get this upgrade underway ASAP.

Two T45's configured in this way would provide fantastic coverage for the CSG but if they were upgraded to this standard would it still be justifiable to spend so much on the T26's? Not sure.....