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

[Ron5]

That explains the 859 million demonstration phase which was the risk reduction and response to the T45 fiasco. Doesn't impact the 3.6 billion build contract for 3. 1.2 billion per unit, out of which about 300 million is an electoral bribe there's no other way of putting it.

Were not the earlier spends rolled up into the 3.6 billion?

[Ron5]

Fleet Commander meets Bob(s) ..

[SD67]

That explains the 859 million demonstration phase which was the risk reduction and response to the T45 fiasco. Doesn't impact the 3.6 billion build contract for 3. 1.2 billion per unit, out of which about 300 million is an electoral bribe there's no other way of putting it.

Were not the earlier spends rolled up into the 3.6 billion?

At the conclusion of the demonstration phase the 150 + 857 had been spent, but a bit over 3.6 was still in the 10 year equipment plan. But yeah the governments reporting on these numbers has been beyond opaque from the get go

[bobp]

Historical paddle steamer passing HMS Glasgow............

[JohnM]

More excellent news, this time on the T26… it looks like the MK-41 silos won’t be empty after all.. now all that’s missing is the announcement they’ll also have VLA…

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys ... s-by-2028/

[Jdam]

Sort of feels like we might not get the intern solution.

[JohnM]

Sort of feels like we might not get the intern solution.

AFAIK the interim solution is still on for 5 tailed T23s, the hope being they’ll eventually migrate to the T31s… why would the interim solution be off the table? It’s called “interim” for a reason… and it’s supposed to be operational in 2023… The degree of pessimism and the desire to find the worst in every piece of good news on this forum is really baffling sometimes… just take the good news for what they are… sometimes there’s no other shoe to drop…

[bobp]

More excellent new

Yes indeed hopefully they will enter service as speedily as possible.

[RichardIC]

Guided Weapons: Procurement
Mr Kevan Jones:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress has been made on the development of the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon.
Jeremy Quin:
[27033]
The Future Cruise/ Anti-Ship Weapon Programme is due to complete Concept Phase activity in July 2021. The Concept Phase has been focussed on conducting in depth operational analysis, technical studies and initial design activity to refine user requirements and better understand the options available to MOD to meet these. The Concept Phase findings forms part of the Programme's Outline Business Case for Ministerial consideration.
Mr Kevan Jones: [27034]
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, which platform his Department plans to use for the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon.

Jeremy Quin:
The planning assumption for the Future Cruise/Anti-ship Weapon is that it will be operated from both the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft.
Mr Kevan Jones: [27035] To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the cost has been to the public purse to
date of the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon programme.
Jeremy Quin:
The total spend to date on Future Cruise/ Anti-Ship Weapon and associated activities by the Ministry of Defence is £95 million.
Mr Kevan Jones: [27036]
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the planned service date for the Future
Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon.
Jeremy Quin:
The Planning Assumption for Service Entry for Future Cruise /Anti-Ship Weapon on the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft is 2028 and 2030 respectively.

This is the first concrete answer of what and when will go in the Type 26 VLS ‘and is excellent news.

Why with this and the Type 45 upgrade announcements the MoD is on a roll this week.

You have to ask though: Develop and have in service a new missile on Type 26 by 2028. Can it be done in that timeframe?

[Jdam]

Can it be done in that timeframe?

Are there any similar weapons programs recently completed we could use as a comparison and see how long they took? (LRASM maybe?)

It does seem to match up quite well, we can get Glasgow up and running then we can use her as a test bed for our weapons in the MK41.

[Pseudo]

You have to ask though: Develop and have in service a new missile on Type 26 by 2028. Can it be done in that timeframe?

haven't they already been working on this for about a decade all in all?

[Jdam]

Some very good and very bad news in one tweet. Good to see they are still powering a head with Glasgow, I sure the gearbox issues will only effect HMS Glasgow.

[Ron5]

From the Daily Telegraph. Checkout the build price quoted.

Type 26 frigate: Inside the world's most advanced warship

The new City class frigates have been designed to take an unprecedented amount of hits and keep coming
By Alan Tovey, Industry Editor 12 July 2021 • 6:00am

The sun beats down on BAE Systems’ Glasgow shipyard as the first of eight of the Royal Navy’s new Type 26 frigates takes shape on the quayside.

Inside, engineers work in searing heat on what will be the world’s most advanced warship when it is handed over to the military in the mid-2020s.

Scaffolding and cables make moving around tricky, while pipes, studs and other fittings protrude from the floor, walls and ceilings, catching the unwary.

The scene could be described as chaotic.

Not so, says Sir Simon Lister, managing director of BAE’s naval ships business, as he gives The Telegraph a tour of HMS Glasgow - a future-proofed fighting vessel designed to withstand heavy bombardment and hit back harder - during her construction at the company’s Govan shipyard.

“Look at this,” he says, pointing to a two inch stud welded to a bulkhead. He explains it wasn’t on the original digital plans, but was added by veteran shipbuilders who saw that cables needed to be directed around what will become the frigate’s operations room.

“Now it’s on the plan. We can track every nut, bolt, cable on this ship,” he says, explaining that accounting for such minor details is critical to the project being on time and budget.

Sir Simon says that in the past ships, such as the first-in-class HMS Glasgow, were “fettled” during construction. Shipyard staff would improvise workarounds when the plans didn’t fit. This meant each ship had variations, complicating operation and maintenance.

The Type 26, which will be known as a City class frigate, avoids this problem. It has been designed using advanced computer-aided design (CAD) systems which allow engineers to virtually “fly” through a digital version of the vessel, examining every nook and cranny, seeing how parts and systems work and fit together.

This means every component is tracked so engineers know exactly where it is, whether that’s under construction by a supplier, in transport, sitting in the dockyard, or fitted in the ship. They also know how close each part is to being finished and who is working on it.

Changes are uploaded to make sure every part of the ship is on record.

“This plan was updated at 6.30am this morning - we update the design every day,” says Kevin Williams, principal engineer leading a virtual tour of the ship’s interior on a giant screen. He effortlessly passes through decks and bulkheads, isolating systems such as piping.

Input into the Type 26’s design has come at all levels. Williams took his system on the road, touring naval bases so even the most junior sailors could help identify issues.

“Any bad design is going to have an impact for decades as these ships will be in service until at least the 2050s,” says Williams.

The frigates which the City class will replace had an issue with a high-pressure air system that required regular maintenance, says Richard Dingley, BAE integration director.

“[This] meant removing the one ton freezers it was behind, so you had to either run down the freezers or eat all the food in them,” says Dingley. “The one thing you don’t want to do is disturb sailors in the habitable areas. This system means we can avoid that.”

Back on board, Sir Simon explains the Type 26 has been designed to take an unprecedented amount of hits and keep fighting.

“These ships are the opposite of Snatch Land Rovers,” he says, referring to the Army’s old and notoriously under-protected vehicles. “They are designed to go in serious harm’s way and fight through it.”

He drops to the floor of what will be the ship’s bridge, pointing to a bracket on which equipment will be mounted, absorbing impacts that could knock out sensitive kit. “This ship will fight through shock,” he adds.

The tour continues to one of the ship’s key features, the mission bay. This large space with cranes overhead will accommodate small boats and shipping containers which can plug into the frigate’s networks.

Being able to quickly take on board equipment is what future-proofs the Type 26, according to Sir Simon.

While modifying a ship with new systems generally requires a shipyard visit, being able to fly in new kit in self-contained shipping containers via the flight deck provides a huge advantage.

Pointing to the mission bay’s large hinged doors, Sir Simon says: “What comes out of there in the future is what will worry the enemy. Will it be marine, drones, new surveillance kit or something we haven’t even thought of?”

But the Type 26 hasn’t been without problems, despite winning praise from the National Audit Office, which said the £3.7bn contract for the first three vessels was a year ahead of schedule - something which raises eyebrows at Glasgow.

As The Telegraph visits, workers are preparing to cut a huge hole in the ship’s side to install a gearbox, which is eight months late. The digital design was supposed to eliminate such problems, with massive items such as this installed in the block building stage.

“I can guarantee we absolutely haven’t seen the last problem or what it will be,” says Sir Simon. “But we know we can fix them.”

That experience should also help reduce costs. The £3.7bn for the first three works out at £1.3bn in development and design, with each ship costing £800m to build. Lessons learned from each vessel could allow BAE to cut the price per hull by a fifth.

It could be expensive for BAE if it doesn’t: the company is on a “target cost incentive” deal, meaning it shares the gain if costs fall, but also the pain if it blows the budget.

But for Sir Simon, who “learnt his trade in frigates, but then served in submarines up close and personal with the Russians”, HMS Glasgow means far more than a manufacturing project.

There’s an old saying that submarines see every other sort of warship as a target, but the ex-submariner turned industry chief isn’t so sure.

“As a former submariner,’ he says, “it’s a target to avoid, not go after.”

[Caribbean]

So a "sticker price" of £800m, falling to £640m or so and running ahead of schedule? Maybe we should just add another one onto the second batch, purely in the interests of keeping the shipyards busy, of course, if they finish early and run out of work

[Ron5]

So a "sticker price" of £800m, falling to £640m or so and running ahead of schedule? Maybe we should just add another one onto the second batch, purely in the interests of keeping the shipyards busy, of course, if they finish early and run out of work

They could call the extra one(s) Type 32

[tomuk]

As The Telegraph visits, workers are preparing to cut a huge hole in the ship’s side to install a gearbox, which is eight months late. The digital design was supposed to eliminate such problems, with massive items such as this installed in the block building stage.

Hopefully this will be the last of the gearbox issues. Will they need to do the same to Cardiff?

[Jdam]

So a "sticker price" of £800m, falling to £640m or so and running ahead of schedule? Maybe we should just add another one onto the second batch, purely in the interests of keeping the shipyards busy, of course, if they finish early and run out of work

They could call the extra one(s) Type 32

The mind does wonder what price BAE would need to get the hull cost down too in order to get more ships ordered.

Just another success story for the Type 26 program, also helps keep Babcok focused on delivering the type 31 on time and budget.

[Poiuytrewq]

Checkout the build price[/quote

£800m, falling to £640m or so

If fully loaded T26's can be built for £640m the T32 needs to be abandoned immediately.

At that price even the T31 programme looks questionable.

The T31's £2bn spend up to this point would have bought another THREE T26's with another £80m left over to invest in the Frigate Factory, build an extra OPV or put permanent hangers on two of the Bays.

This is far from a vindication of the rationality of current planning.

[JohnM]

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...

[Enigmatically]

You also need to consider through life costs to compare apples with apples.
Contrary to what the media would have you believe that is where most money goes. The 50% higher complement on T26 will make a big difference I'm afraid

[Poiuytrewq]

You also need to consider through life costs to compare apples with apples.
Contrary to what the media would have you believe that is where most money goes. The 50% higher complement on T26 will make a big difference I'm afraid

Couldn't agree more.

A detailed through life cost comparison between the T31 and T26 with identical armament would be highly illuminating.

At £640m per hull, an additional two T26's setup specifically for TAPs with a 57mm in place of the 127mm and a reduced number of VLS tubes would seem like money well spent.

By freeing up all eight of the fully loaded T26's the lack of credible escorts for the two LRG's would be solved instantly.

[tomuk]

The

At £640m per hull, an additional two T26's setup specifically for TAPs with a 57mm in place of the 127mm and a reduced number of VLS tubes would seem like money well spent.

Switching to that weapons fit wouldn't reduce the cost of extra T26 by much and the figure 25% figure quoted by Sir Simon is also questionable if after building one hull, not fitted out, half building another and starting on the third you can now see savings of a quarter as client I would be asking for my money back on the current order before I bought anymore.

[Caribbean]

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...

That's the way I see it. We now have more clarity on the actual build costs vs the total program costs for both the T26 and the T31, which is great, but unfortunately you still have to spend the money on the rest of the program costs. The initial development and design costs of £1.3 billion will add £162 million to the cost of each of the 8 frigates, so a build cost of £640 to 800 million per hull will become a program cost of between £802 and £962 million and there is still the initial maintenance and training contract to add to that. I would not be surprised if that added more than £50 million to the cost per hull, for a 10-year contract. Then add in the actual running costs. When you look at it that way - £2 billion pounds could only buy two more T26s, (though with maybe enough left over for another River B2)

[Poiuytrewq]

Switching to that weapons fit wouldn't reduce the cost of extra T26 by much....

Really?

Are you aware that the first three Mk45's with associated auto magazines cost around £60m per hull. Hardly chicken feed.

Reducing the VLS tubes to a level specifically optimised for TAPs deployments would also save a considerable amount over the service lifetime of the vessels.

Shrinking the armament would also shrink the crew size and operating costs accordingly.

Having 2 out of 8 Type 26's constantly committed to TAP's is always going to be a colossal waste of very limited resources for RN.

[Caribbean]

True - there are some big-ticket items - removing the 5' gun and magazine (and replacing with a 57mm) would save a lot. Dropping TLAM capability would also do so - I read somewhere that the mission planning and missile programming interface is $30m or so. Mk 41 cells aren't particularly expensive - it's the gubbins needed to make the missiles fly in the right direction that costs the money. Maybe just support ASROC. In fact, simply equipping with the T31 guns, sensors and comms would probably save a fair amount - you might be able to shave £100m off the cost, maybe a little more. In the end, I suspect that we would get a T31 built on an ASW hull, but for £500-550m build cost. Maybe it would be better to start with the A140 and insert all the quietening measures that it's designed to take and see what we get - I suspect that it will be considerably cheaper than the T26 based version.