Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[RichardIC]

Why does BAE not have a design portfolio full of Destroyer, Frigate and OPV designs that export customers can consider when the requirement arises?

Because designing warships costs tens of millions of pounds and requires tens of thousands of hours from skilled people who are in short supply. An artists impression and a cut-and-shut image knocked up on a PC isn't a warship design. The Germans and French have had a steady export pipeline going back decades so have been able to maintain momentum. The UK stopped doing that sort of thing regularly in the 1960s so we're effectively starting from scratch.

Leander was clearly a viable vessel. Why has HMG not ordered three to replace the RB1's? It would be an easy win for UK PLC and RN.

In what respect was it viable? It would probably float and move. From what I can remember most people on here loathed the thing and the RN clearly didn't want it. And it wasn't ordered to replace the Batch 1 Rivers because there was no requirement and no money.

The T31 was a fantastic opportunity to give BAE or Babcock a world beating light or medium Frigate design, suitable for export, that was squandered by going to the lowest International bidder and tarting up a decades old design. No joined-up thinking led to a design full of foreign components and systems even when viable British alternatives existed.

Only if you don't understand what the Type 31 requirement was and you live in a world where money doesn't matter. The MoD was skint. Actually the RN is getting something that is far more than anyone ever imagined possible when the competition was launched.

[ArmChairCivvy]

it wasn't ordered to replace the Batch 1 Rivers

as 5 RB2s were ordered to replace RB1 & RB1.5s

The MoD was skint. Actually the RN is getting something that is far more than anyone ever imagined possible when the competition was launched.

Competition can work wonders!

[donald_of_tokyo]

The T31 was a fantastic opportunity to give BAE or Babcock a world beating light or medium Frigate design, suitable for export, that was squandered by going to the lowest International bidder and tarting up a decades old design. No joined-up thinking led to a design full of foreign components and systems even when viable British alternatives existed.

Only if you don't understand what the Type 31 requirement was and you live in a world where money doesn't matter. The MoD was skint. Actually the RN is getting something that is far more than anyone ever imagined possible when the competition was launched.

Ummm. At least in ship-designing-skill point of view, T31 gave UK almost nothing. Note, T31 did give a good ship design to UK (although 10-20 years old in its origin = Absalon), but no naval engineer who can develop a warship from scratch was grown up. None.

# Original Babcock plans was to design and export Arrowhead series (Arrowhead 120 being the largest among the series), which were designed internally in Babcock. Babcock thew away that idea, when they identified how much it costs and see HMG/MOD is NOT interested in doing so..

I agree to Poiuytrewq-san on this regard.

T31 requirement was for "global cruising (= frigate hull) GP frigate (= sensors and armament in corvette level (or even less))", as shown clearly in T31 RFI. I agree it could have been a good chance for UK industry to grow a British-corvette design. But, "British-origin design" requirement was totally ignored. That was the HMG/MOD's choice. Very different from Italian, Spanish, German or French government. Very very unique approach UK is taking.

[Ron5]

Very very unique approach UK is taking.

That's a nice way of saying effing stupid.

[Ron5]

it wasn't ordered to replace the Batch 1 Rivers

as 5 RB2s were ordered to replace RB1 & RB1.5s

The MoD was skint. Actually the RN is getting something that is far more than anyone ever imagined possible when the competition was launched.

Competition can work wonders!

The other thing the "competition" (in quotes because the winner was decided ahead of time) demonstrated to most of the world outside of its hallowed walls, is that the Treasury's ideas of the cost of warships was (and still remains) totally ridiculous.

Original Treasury-decided Type 31 budget was $250 million per ship. Current estimate is $400 million per ship for a design that's less capable than originally envisioned because both "competitors" said it couldn't be done at 250.

I personally doubt that it will come into service at the current cost point. Overruns are inevitable given the choice of a company that's never built a warship in its corporate life and in a location with a brand new set of facilities manned by an inexperienced workforce. plus it's a military procurement in the UK.

So let's be optimistic and estimate a 25% overrun making the ships 500 million each.

I wonder what price Bae offered to build a stripped down Type 26 that was too expensive for Geo Osborne. I'd bet not far off that 500 mill.

[Tempest414]

I personally doubt that it will come into service at the current cost point. Overruns are inevitable given the choice of a company that's never built a warship in its corporate life and in a location with a brand new set of facilities manned by an inexperienced workforce. plus it's a military procurement in the UK.

I am not going to say it will be all plan sailing but Babcock did build the Irish 90m OPV's on time and on budget unlike BAE with the B2's it has also carried out upgrade work on the T-23's mostly on time and budget add to this Rosyth have built 2 Carriers over the last decade

With this being said CL have not built a warship ether every thing you have out lined above would have been the same for BAE/ CL

[Ron5]

1. Appledore built the Irish OPV not Babcock's. Sure Babcock's lbought DML who owned the Appledore well after the first Irish contract but that doesn't mean much it? The Appledore workforce has been dispersed to the winds since Babcock's closed the site. The last workers ended up at Devonport, not Rosyth.

2. The carriers were assembled not built at Rosyth by the ACA consortium headed by Bae and with mostly a Bae workforce. Babcock's was a bit player.

3. Refitting type 23's in Plymouth does not make Babcock's a warship builder.

4. What has Cammel Laird got to do with this or are you agreeing that the Type 31 contract is very likely to overrun?

By the way, I personally hope the T31 program runs smoothly. I just don't think it will.

[Lord Jim]

I have a feeling the T-31,s will be late and cost more. I also have a feeling there is going to be some "Mission creep" with the T-31 between now and the last ship entering the water, which will also add to costs, with the T-32 being pushed down the road as a result.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I am not going to say it will be all plan sailing but Babcock did build the Irish 90m OPV's on time and on budget unlike BAE with the B2's...

It was within the budget. Even cheaper than allocated. High cost of original contract is just because of ToBA = for T26, not River B2. Screw gluing issue? BAE payed it by themselves.

On the other hand, yes, MOD paid for slightly longer keeping some River B1s "in action" (this was luckily resulted in keeping them because of Brexit fishery protection issue, but this is independent issue, I agree).

[donald_of_tokyo]

I have a feeling the T-31,s will be late and cost more. I also have a feeling there is going to be some "Mission creep" with the T-31 between now and the last ship entering the water, which will also add to costs, with the T-32 being pushed down the road as a result.

There are 3 new things in T31 building.

1: The first foreign designed escort to be built in UK. Not just the concept (like CVF), but the full detailed design was introduced from Denmark, with minimum modification (mostly simplification of sensors and weapon systems). New for UK, but many cases in the world.

2: The first escort ever built by Babcock. Irish OPV is of Vard-7 85 and 90 designs. And, the sales point of Vard7 design is "it is basically merchant ship design", just look like a corvette/sloop. See their web.

3: No modification to requirement is allowed from MOD/RN, after the contract. This is new. However, based on my personal experience on something complex (not warship), defining everything before actually building it requires very high skill and good experience to BOTH the ordering-side and supplier-side = RN and Babcock. I'm afraid both of them are not so much well-experienced in escort designing (RN used to be, but not now). Let's hope BMT, OMT and Thales-Netherland properly adviced them ...

[Enigmatically]

1. Appledore built the Irish OPV not Babcock's. Sure Babcock's lbought DML who owned the Appledore well after the first Irish contract but that doesn't mean much it? The Appledore workforce has been dispersed to the winds since Babcock's closed the site. The last workers ended up at Devonport, not Rosyth.

2. The carriers were assembled not built at Rosyth by the ACA consortium headed by Bae and with mostly a Bae workforce. Babcock's was a bit player.

3. Refitting type 23's in Plymouth does not make Babcock's a warship builder.

4. What has Cammel Laird got to do with this or are you agreeing that the Type 31 contract is very likely to overrun?

By the way, I personally hope the T31 program runs smoothly. I just don't think it will.

Somewhat late I know, but I feel one of your points should be corrected

2. Some of the blocks were built at Rosyth by Babcocks, and some smaller units at Appledore when it was Babcock
Mostly BAE workforce? I honestly don't know the split, but there were a hell of a lot more companies involved than those 2, so overall I doubt BAE employees were in the majority any more than Babcock. Those subcontracting options exist for both companies

[Ron5]

Some of the blocks were built at Rosyth by Babcocks

Sponsons right? There weren't any Rosyth facilities for anything complicated. The fact remains that the carriers were assembled in Rosyth, not built. Folks may have forgotten but Babcock's did not win the contract to build the carriers. It was a consortium lead by Bae.

The same way that Babcock's sold that the T31's would be built all around the UK and just assembled in Scotland. Well not so much anymore. Will any part of the T31's be built elsewhere?

[Enigmatically]

Some of the blocks were built at Rosyth by Babcocks

Sponsons right? There weren't any Rosyth facilities for anything complicated. The fact remains that the carriers were assembled in Rosyth, not built. Folks may have forgotten but Babcock's did not win the contract to build the carriers. It was a consortium lead by Bae.

The same way that Babcock's sold that the T31's would be built all around the UK and just assembled in Scotland. Well not so much anymore. Will any part of the T31's be built elsewhere?

Ooh Ron, now you are digging yourself a hole:
Sponsons were built at Rosyth, but so were some centre sections. And bow sections in Appledore
It is true that Babcocks did not win the contract to build the carriers, but technically neither did BAE. Thales won the design competition in almost every respect. However for political reasons at the time (some allege because Chirac had snubbed Blair the week before) it was felt that they couldn't award the whole contract to Thales. There were several machinations before it ended up as a largely BAE led consortium.

As for no Rosyth facilities for anything complicated, I'm not sure what you mean. I can't immediately think of anything missing at Rosyth that was present at Portsmouth or on the Clyde for example. We could get into a debate about who delivered the best quality but it would be a sterile debate, as far as I can remember every yard thought they were the best and the others rubbish - and that applies as much within companies as across them. And I'm afraid I will have to sit on my hands if asked my own opinion

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks. In short, CVF build was lead by BAES, not Babcock, am I correct? (It was tooooo complicated consortium, when looked from the far east ...).

Anyway, we are here talking about the "risk".

Cammell Laird saw significant cost overrun with RSS Sir David Attenborough. Does this mean ordering something to CL is a risk? No. Actually they are now one of the most trained workforce in UK now. They DID NOT knew how to build a ship before RSS SDA. Now they know (but not sure about escorts).

For sure, BAE is the most trained workforce in UK to build an escort. No doubt.

Babcock. "No one knows". So there is a "risk". I think this is a fair judgement? "Risk" means it MAY go well, and it MAY ALSO NOT go well. That's it, I understand? For example, Rosyth's steel work was there when CVF block was built but was lost then? We know there was no steel work remaining, right before T31 contract. They were forced to built (or rebuilt) new one there.

[Enigmatically]

It is fair that Babcock is more of a risk, yes. But if that is the decider then you can never create competition again because BAE always wins.
Also, you have to decide what the real risks are. For example
Steelwork? Not really - there are plenty of high quality steel workers around in various industries
Combat Systems? Well that's Thales not Babcock. Again, probably into subjective opinions there
Platform Design? Trade between 'off-the'shelf' design and the lower experience Babcock have in the detailed design that is still needed specific to platform
Project management? Possibly the biggest discriminator, and the official reason why Thales wasn't given the whole carrier contract - Thales UK (note the UK bit) didn't have the experience as prime. Again, if you want competition then at some point you can only cure that by giving them something. I do see the logic of giving them T31 as a tester rather than QEC!

[NickC]

Re the Greek contract Naval News 9th June has a short piece on what bids might be considered, gain the impression contract will be for four new frigates, modernisation of the Greek Navy’s Hydra class frigates and an urgent requirement for 'second hand' frigates asap, would the RN T23's be available and suitable as part of the Babcock bid.

Lockheed Martin with the MMSC
Naval Group with the FDI/Belharra
Damen Sigma 11515
Babcock with the Type 31/Arrowhead
TKMS with the MEKO A200NG (or MEKO A300)
Fincantieri (allegedly with the FREMM)

Also of interest is the new Damen Sigma 11515 in that it looks very similar in concept to the Babcock bid with the Arrowhead/T31++, to be built in country with Thales Nederland kit etc.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... e-program/

[donald_of_tokyo]

UK is the only nation relying on competition, not on RN/MOD/HMGs own training, skill and negotiation, to control the cost of procurement in western world (may be other than USA). As UK is NOT paying double/triple the cost of what France is paying for its defense industry, hoping for 2 (actually requiring 3) competitive industry to bid for RN escort building is actually VERY RISKEY.

# End result could be all 3 will be ruined because of insufficient investment. How can Babcock, which has a volume of a tiny fraction (a tenth of? even less?) of Fincantieri in escort building, can be as competitive as them?

If Babcock goes very well on escort building, it may just replace BAES in future. BAE will just fade away closing Clyde, and Babcock will be the sole escort builder in UK. In short, no competition continues and nothing changes.

This is the highest risk I see in T31 procurement.

#Sorry being a bit pessimistic here. I think T31 procurement "dream" is very very unlogical. In short term, yes it works. But how can it be a long term vision?

[ArmChairCivvy]

carriers were assembled not built at Rosyth

The past may be a guide into the future (but the FCA warns against taking that as a copper-bottom guarantee)

going to be some "Mission creep" with the T-31 between now and the last ship entering the water, which will also add to costs, with the T-32 being pushed down the road as a result.

There would be nothing wrong with that; whatever force mix we need (as history tells us, it does tend to change quicker than the build plans)

yes, MOD paid for slightly longer keeping some River B1s "in action"

Let's not mix operational costs and the building costs (which, on their own, are complicated enough. With the design vs. build... in terms that the current gvmnt would understand well: the latter is a just a 'sausage machine' )

defining everything before actually building it requires very high skill and good experience to BOTH the ordering-side and supplier-side

You could not be MORE right

[Lord Jim]

Our yards will only survive on a drip feed of UK orders and maybe a few export builds. The key thing is going to be the design teams, as we are more likely these days to sell the designs for new Warships rather than the Warships themselves, as most nations also want a Warship building capability.

Maybe we should have a Joint Naval Design Office, with both engineers form the Yards, MoD staff and those form the sub contractors, working together and them working out a programme as to which yard builds which ship for our use as well as coming up with alternative versions of these as well as separate designs to interest other nations.

[Tempest414]

I was thinking something the same with the cost of design and R&D and the need for more complex designs maybe the UK should invest in making say BMT the UK design house with yards given programs due to capacity with yards also having overseas project teams to help overseas yards with building UK designs

[Ron5]

Some of the blocks were built at Rosyth by Babcocks

Sponsons right? There weren't any Rosyth facilities for anything complicated. The fact remains that the carriers were assembled in Rosyth, not built. Folks may have forgotten but Babcock's did not win the contract to build the carriers. It was a consortium lead by Bae.

The same way that Babcock's sold that the T31's would be built all around the UK and just assembled in Scotland. Well not so much anymore. Will any part of the T31's be built elsewhere?

Ooh Ron, now you are digging yourself a hole:
Sponsons were built at Rosyth, but so were some centre sections. And bow sections in Appledore
It is true that Babcocks did not win the contract to build the carriers, but technically neither did BAE. Thales won the design competition in almost every respect. However for political reasons at the time (some allege because Chirac had snubbed Blair the week before) it was felt that they couldn't award the whole contract to Thales. There were several machinations before it ended up as a largely BAE led consortium.

As for no Rosyth facilities for anything complicated, I'm not sure what you mean. I can't immediately think of anything missing at Rosyth that was present at Portsmouth or on the Clyde for example. We could get into a debate about who delivered the best quality but it would be a sterile debate, as far as I can remember every yard thought they were the best and the others rubbish - and that applies as much within companies as across them. And I'm afraid I will have to sit on my hands if asked my own opinion

Ooooh now you're re-writing history to bolster your argument. Must be an academic.

Back in the real world, the most complex CVF blocks were built by Bae away from Rosyth. Facilities light and with an inexperineced workforce Babcock's just welded up some "easy" boxes on the Rosyth quayside.

There was a bunch of facilities present then at Portsmouth that were not at Rosyth. A panel line for one that's only just been installed for the Type 31's. Yes, facilities were present on the Clyde but that's Bae not Babcock's. And we're talking Babcock's here and if they had all the required facilities at Rosyth, why are they busily building a complex to build the T31's? You don't buy and build what you already have, do you?

I'm not rising to your red herrings of who providing the best quality or that Thales could have built them but politics got in the way, or any other such nonsense. I'm merely pointing out that Babcock's has never built a warship. They may have convinced the press and MP's that they have on the basis of the CVF's being assembled at Rosyth but that's baloney. As is the attempt to claim the Babcock's inherited that ability through buying Appledore. That's baloney too.

All in fun

[Ron5]

It is fair that Babcock is more of a risk, yes. But if that is the decider then you can never create competition again because BAE always wins.
Also, you have to decide what the real risks are. For example
Steelwork? Not really - there are plenty of high quality steel workers around in various industries
Combat Systems? Well that's Thales not Babcock. Again, probably into subjective opinions there
Platform Design? Trade between 'off-the'shelf' design and the lower experience Babcock have in the detailed design that is still needed specific to platform
Project management? Possibly the biggest discriminator, and the official reason why Thales wasn't given the whole carrier contract - Thales UK (note the UK bit) didn't have the experience as prime. Again, if you want competition then at some point you can only cure that by giving them something. I do see the logic of giving them T31 as a tester rather than QEC!

I guess that sums up the government/MoD/Treasury logic pretty well:

All I, or anyone else, has to do is hire a design company, hire some Polish welders, rent a shipyard, buy a combat system and hire some project managers, and I'm instantly a credible competitor for a juicy defense contract.

Maybe the most important parts are to hire a top advertising company to produce some glossy slides & videos plus promise a few MP's in marginal constituencies that I'll bring in jobs. It's not like I have to keep those promises. MP's have short memories.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Ron5]

UK is the only nation relying on competition, not on RN/MOD/HMGs own training, skill and negotiation, to control the cost of procurement in western world (may be other than USA). As UK is NOT paying double/triple the cost of what France is paying for its defense industry, hoping for 2 (actually requiring 3) competitive industry to bid for RN escort building is actually VERY RISKEY.

# End result could be all 3 will be ruined because of insufficient investment. How can Babcock, which has a volume of a tiny fraction (a tenth of? even less?) of Fincantieri in escort building, can be as competitive as them?

If Babcock goes very well on escort building, it may just replace BAES in future. BAE will just fade away closing Clyde, and Babcock will be the sole escort builder in UK. In short, no competition continues and nothing changes.

This is the highest risk I see in T31 procurement.

#Sorry being a bit pessimistic here. I think T31 procurement "dream" is very very unlogical. In short term, yes it works. But how can it be a long term vision?

I could not agree more.

The type 32 procurement will be interesting. If it's a competition, what happens if Babcock's loses? It's hard to imagine they will hang around to compete for the Type 83.

If it's not a competition, the shipbuilding strategy just gets thrown out of the window and the MoD has the lovely job of eking out the existence of two escort yards on the back of a tiny trickle of new orders. The owners of those yards, of course, will invest nothing to make them/keep them competitive on a global scale. So no exports either.

Given the huge international success of the Type 26, any sane government would focus all their orders and R&D money on Bae in order to create another success. The Type 32 could actually be a fresh from the ground up, brand new design with all the latest. To be built anywhere and by anyone with royalties and systems money flowing back to the UK. Just like the T26.

[Ron5]

I was thinking something the same with the cost of design and R&D and the need for more complex designs maybe the UK should invest in making say BMT the UK design house with yards given programs due to capacity with yards also having overseas project teams to help overseas yards with building UK designs

How many warship designs has BMT sold?

[Enigmatically]

Some of the blocks were built at Rosyth by Babcocks

Sponsons right? There weren't any Rosyth facilities for anything complicated. The fact remains that the carriers were assembled in Rosyth, not built. Folks may have forgotten but Babcock's did not win the contract to build the carriers. It was a consortium lead by Bae.

The same way that Babcock's sold that the T31's would be built all around the UK and just assembled in Scotland. Well not so much anymore. Will any part of the T31's be built elsewhere?

Ooh Ron, now you are digging yourself a hole:
Sponsons were built at Rosyth, but so were some centre sections. And bow sections in Appledore
It is true that Babcocks did not win the contract to build the carriers, but technically neither did BAE. Thales won the design competition in almost every respect. However for political reasons at the time (some allege because Chirac had snubbed Blair the week before) it was felt that they couldn't award the whole contract to Thales. There were several machinations before it ended up as a largely BAE led consortium.

As for no Rosyth facilities for anything complicated, I'm not sure what you mean. I can't immediately think of anything missing at Rosyth that was present at Portsmouth or on the Clyde for example. We could get into a debate about who delivered the best quality but it would be a sterile debate, as far as I can remember every yard thought they were the best and the others rubbish - and that applies as much within companies as across them. And I'm afraid I will have to sit on my hands if asked my own opinion

Ooooh now you're re-writing history to bolster your argument. Must be an academic.

Back in the real world, the most complex CVF blocks were built by Bae away from Rosyth. Facilities light and with an inexperineced workforce Babcock's just welded up some "easy" boxes on the Rosyth quayside.

There was a bunch of facilities present then at Portsmouth that were not at Rosyth. A panel line for one that's only just been installed for the Type 31's. Yes, facilities were present on the Clyde but that's Bae not Babcock's. And we're talking Babcock's here and if they had all the required facilities at Rosyth, why are they busily building a complex to build the T31's? You don't buy and build what you already have, do you?

I'm not rising to your red herrings of who providing the best quality or that Thales could have built them but politics got in the way, or any other such nonsense. I'm merely pointing out that Babcock's has never built a warship. They may have convinced the press and MP's that they have on the basis of the CVF's being assembled at Rosyth but that's baloney. As is the attempt to claim the Babcock's inherited that ability through buying Appledore. That's baloney too.

All in fun

I wasn't trying to make any argument or case, merely trying to point out some inaccuracies in what you wrote. And I'm not re-writing history, merely saying what I saw with my own eyes (not from either set of company fluff pieces). I have no axe to grind for BAE, Babcock or Thales for that matter. Clearly BAE have far more experience, but there is no need to downplay the contribution Babcock made.