Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SD67 wrote:Agreed. T26 is expensive whatever way you cut it. FREMM unit cost for Italy averages 600 million EUR. FTI build cost budget is 420 million EUR/unit. There is significant inefficiency baked into the T26 two yard build process.
Sorry, not sure what you meant. Do not know about Italy. It is always very cheap than France FREMM. I guess "what is included" differs.

But, FTI "average cost" is £3.3Bn/5 = £660M. Its "unit cost" is of course much cheaper, because unit cost is by definition "the cost to add one more hull" = 6th hull. In case of T26, its "average cost" is £1.2Bn or so. But it is for the first batch of 3 hulls. T26's "unit cost" is unknown, but as the first 3 hulls are "only" £3.6Bn, and detailed design and initial inefficiency cost as much as 2 unit cost (in case of French FREMM, it is reported to their congress that it amounts as much as 3 unit cost equivalent), the T26 unit cost might be as low as £750M. Actually, considering the "demonstration phase" £800M and so on, I am guessing the T26 unit cost (= cost to build one more hull) is £850-900M. Expensive? Yes, but considering its quiet propulsion, large hull, mission bay and 24-cell Mk.41 VLS, I think it is just reflecting the capability (although 10-20% inefficiency of industry shall be added).

# inefficiency of industry: If UK builds something equivalent to FTI, it will surely be expensive than French FTI. French government is supporting its ship building industry for long, with many export orders to keep up the skills of their labors/engineers. UK HMG did not do it and less efficiency is just a reasonable result of it.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

SD67 wrote:
NickC wrote:Donald-san I do not claim T26 is 'vastly' expensive, but I think you will agree its an expensive ship and that was why Cameron in his 2015 presentation of the SDSR announced the cut of the T26 buy from thirteen to eight, he said a new warship would be "more affordable than the Type 26, which will allow us to buy more of them."
Agreed. T26 is expensive whatever way you cut it. FREMM unit cost for Italy averages 600 million EUR. FTI build cost budget is 420 million EUR/unit. There is significant inefficiency baked into the T26 two yard build process.
"A senior naval officer at the DSEI show in London in September 2015 gave a ballpark figure of £12 billion in outturn price for 13 [T26] warships during a speech. MoD sources later said he had rounded up the figure to £12 billion and the real cost was below £11.5 billion". The cut from 13 to 8 in the November 2015 SDSR

Perhaps one reason its expensive is its size, its a large ship, the former head of Irving Shipbuilding told the CBC that the CSC full load displacement is 9,400t, that's the same as USN Arleigh Burke Flight IIA destroyer. The new Spanish F110 frigate i compared it to above is 6,100t FLD, using the crude metric of cost per ton that would make the T26 ~50% more expensive than a F110, Italian FREMM ~6,700t FLD, the new USN Constellation frigate 7,400t FLD.

From <https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/ ... r-warship/>

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
South Africa

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Old RN »

Jdam wrote:That seems a bit low for the Burke class, is that all types of Burke? there must be a difference between Flight blocks and sensor packages.
It is a function of semi-active missiles (SM2 and Sea Dart etc) which requires an illuminating radar on each target (the Burke has 3, T42 had 2) and fully active missiles with a data link (Aster, CAMM etc) where it requires the software and surveillance radar. SM-6 is fully active so it is not so constrained. The difference between Aster and CAMM is probably a function of computing power, given the dates they were designed.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

The new SM-2 Block IIIC is also active, so soon the Burke’s and any other Aegis ship will stop having that limitation also. Then, the US Navy will have The following layered missile defence:

SM-3: ABM LR (long range)
SM-6: ABM SR/MR, HMD (working on it), AD LR, ASuW
SM-2: AD MR
ESSM 2: AD SR
RAM/Phalanx: CIWS

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Old RN wrote:
Jdam wrote:That seems a bit low for the Burke class, is that all types of Burke? there must be a difference between Flight blocks and sensor packages.
It is a function of semi-active missiles (SM2 and Sea Dart etc) which requires an illuminating radar on each target (the Burke has 3, T42 had 2) and fully active missiles with a data link (Aster, CAMM etc) where it requires the software and surveillance radar. SM-6 is fully active so it is not so constrained. The difference between Aster and CAMM is probably a function of computing power, given the dates they were designed.
I think you may be forgetting that illuminators can be used against multiple targets with multiple missiles by "time sharing" the radar beams.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:Perhaps one reason its expensive is its size, its a large ship, the former head of Irving Shipbuilding told the CBC that the CSC full load displacement is 9,400t, that's the same as USN Arleigh Burke Flight IIA destroyer. The new Spanish F110 frigate i compared it to above is 6,100t FLD, using the crude metric of cost per ton that would make the T26 ~50% more expensive than a F110, Italian FREMM ~6,700t FLD, the new USN Constellation frigate 7,400t FLD.
What a load of rubbish.

Yes, the Spanish yard can build cheaper than the UK, hardly new news. But no, the US yards cannot.

Full load displacement includes considerable amounts for consumables like fuel, food and crew. None of which cost anything to build.

Systems are the cost drivers in ships, not tonnage.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote:Yes, the Spanish yard can build cheaper than the UK, hardly new news. But no, the US yards cannot.
I would note that "the Spanish yard" is wholly owned by the Spanish state (even Naval Group is 'only' 62% govt. controlled).

In the recent Defence Select Committee evidence session there was some discussion of both Navantia's old fashioned facilities plus access to subsidies and bailouts.

Though I wouldn't seek to pass judgment on their build quality or business model, it's never a fair to compare prices between private and public enterprises.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SD67 wrote:Agreed. T26 is expensive whatever way you cut it. FREMM unit cost for Italy averages 600 million EUR. FTI build cost budget is 420 million EUR/unit. There is significant inefficiency baked into the T26 two yard build process.
Sorry, not sure what you meant. Do not know about Italy. It is always very cheap than France FREMM. I guess "what is included" differs.

But, FTI "average cost" is £3.3Bn/5 = £660M. Its "unit cost" is of course much cheaper, because unit cost is by definition "the cost to add one more hull" = 6th hull. In case of T26, its "average cost" is £1.2Bn or so. But it is for the first batch of 3 hulls. T26's "unit cost" is unknown, but as the first 3 hulls are "only" £3.6Bn, and detailed design and initial inefficiency cost as much as 2 unit cost (in case of French FREMM, it is reported to their congress that it amounts as much as 3 unit cost equivalent), the T26 unit cost might be as low as £750M. Actually, considering the "demonstration phase" £800M and so on, I am guessing the T26 unit cost (= cost to build one more hull) is £850-900M. Expensive? Yes, but considering its quiet propulsion, large hull, mission bay and 24-cell Mk.41 VLS, I think it is just reflecting the capability (although 10-20% inefficiency of industry shall be added).

# inefficiency of industry: If UK builds something equivalent to FTI, it will surely be expensive than French FTI. French government is supporting its ship building industry for long, with many export orders to keep up the skills of their labors/engineers. UK HMG did not do it and less efficiency is just a reasonable result of it.
Donald, three separate contracts :
Design 147 m
Demonstration 857m
BUILD 3.6 bn

3.6 / 3 = 1.2 per unit = 1.4 Billion EUR at today's exchange rate.

FTI BUILD cost = 2.1 bn EUR for 5 = 420 billion EUR per unit.

Total cost comparison :
FTI = 3.8 bn EUR/5 = 760 m EUR/unit
T26 = 4604 m GBP = 5382 EUR/3 = 1794 m Eur / unit.

T26 program cost premium = 136%. I'd half of that is size/capability and half is the "Clyde Tax"
May even be higher depending on how the Government furnished equipment is accounted for, quite a bit of carryover on the T26.
Granted it's a bigger ship. Does it need to be? T23 hauled the same TAS and same Merlin quite well. Anyway it's a sunk cost now, but I doubt that the exercise will be repeated.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SD67 wrote:Donald, three separate contracts :
Design 147 m
Demonstration 857m
BUILD 3.6 bn

3.6 / 3 = 1.2 per unit = 1.4 Billion EUR at today's exchange rate.

FTI BUILD cost = 2.1 bn EUR for 5 = 420 billion EUR per unit.

Total cost comparison :
FTI = 3.8 bn EUR/5 = 760 m EUR/unit
T26 = 4604 m GBP = 5382 EUR/3 = 1794 m Eur / unit.
Why did you excluded the "R&D=€1.7bn" of FTI?

Inclusive, total program cost for 5 FTI is €3.8bn = £3.23B.
T26 program cost premium = 136%. I'd half of that is size/capability and half is the "Clyde Tax"
May even be higher depending on how the Government furnished equipment is accounted for, quite a bit of carryover on the T26.
Granted it's a bigger ship. Does it need to be? T23 hauled the same TAS and same Merlin quite well. Anyway it's a sunk cost now, but I doubt that the exercise will be repeated.
I am never saying T26 is cheaper. Just saying it is not too expensive compared to its capability. For example, French FREMM, as of FY2014, when it was still 11 hull program, would cost €670 million each excluding R&D, or €860m (£730M) including development costs.

Comparing "three T26 is £1.2Bn ave. (2016)" vs "11 FREMM with £730M ave. (2014)" vs "5 FTI with £650M ave.", are a bit better numbers to my understanding, but it still ignores the R&D and initial inefficiency cost. (Note, I never said T26 is cheap and nice. Just saying it is NOT VASTLY expensive...)

Anyway, to compare with FTI, we need know how much it would have costed if the initial batch of T26 was ordered in a number of 5, not 3.

To compare with FREMM, we need to know how much it would cost if it is 11. Actually, we know it was estimated to be £12.4Bn for 13 hulls in 2016. So, T26 was £950M per hull on average (including R&D) if 13 hulls were ordered.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote:
NickC wrote:Perhaps one reason its expensive is its size, its a large ship, the former head of Irving Shipbuilding told the CBC that the CSC full load displacement is 9,400t, that's the same as USN Arleigh Burke Flight IIA destroyer. The new Spanish F110 frigate i compared it to above is 6,100t FLD, using the crude metric of cost per ton that would make the T26 ~50% more expensive than a F110, Italian FREMM ~6,700t FLD, the new USN Constellation frigate 7,400t FLD.
What a load of rubbish.

Yes, the Spanish yard can build cheaper than the UK, hardly new news. But no, the US yards cannot.

Full load displacement includes considerable amounts for consumables like fuel, food and crew. None of which cost anything to build.

Systems are the cost drivers in ships, not tonnage.
What a load of rubbish :clap:

In the USN FY2021 budget submission they estimated that subsequent Constellation class 7,400t frigates will cost roughly $940 million (~£680 million) each in then-year dollars, the Spanish contract for the five F110 6,100t frigates was €4,317 million, ~£740 million per ship.

You have always treat numbers quoted with caution but it appears figures not too far off especially as USN figures do not include the cost of the first ship which includes the DD/NRE, so looking at similar costs and both with full fat systems, no FFBNW, do not have exactly the same systems but near enough.

So yes the Fincantieri US shipyards who build the Constellation can compete on price with the Spanish yards, that should be no surprise as Fincantieri in the top tier of world ship builders, the Italian yards build cruise ships that sell world wide as well as navy ships, SD67 quoted Fincantieri FREMM at €600 million/~£520 million, so it comes as no surprise that they recently won the Indonesian contract for six frigates with FREMM and will be one of the favourites to win the Greek contract.

The crude metric often used to price ships is cost per ton and was used by PBO for the CSC, is based on light ship displacement, as do not have the light figures of the F110, used artistic license and used full load figures which do know and intrinsically linked, should have made that clear. The cost per ton methodology has had a fair degree of success in predicting final ship cost, though there have been notable exceptions especially the Iver Huitfeldt class of three ships delivered for less than a $1 billion and FREMM is on the low side.

The T26 build cost is an unknown as MoD has so obfuscated the figures, which makes me pessimistic, but as said its a big ship, larger in size than all other current frigates, so do not think cost will be on the low side, the question for the RN on future ships is do they persevere with the likely high cost option of the T26 (waiting for the batch 2 T26 order contract value to be revealed to confirm) and with RNs limited budget only buy low numbers per class or take the option of ships based on the T31 or similar for frigates/destroyers for higher numbers (not ASW ships as think the all diesel direct propulsion system too noisy).

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

On the Constellation class, from US Congress document Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44972.pdf)

The Navy began procuring Constellation (FFG-62) class frigates (FFGs) in FY2020, and wants to procure a total of 20 FFG-62s. Congress funded the first FFG-62 in FY2020 at a cost of $1,281.2 million (i.e., about $1.3 billion) and the second in FY2021 at a cost of $1,053.1 million (i.e., about $1.1 billion). The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $1,087.9 million (i.e., about $1.1 billion) for the procurement of the third FFG-62, and $69.1 million in advance procurement (AP) funding for the fourth and fifth FFG-62s, which are programmed for procurement in one or more future fiscal years.

$1.1 billion is £780M, for the third hull.

In total, for the first three hulls, US is paying, $3.4 billion = £2.5B. Not a bad buy, I agree.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:The crude metric often used to price ships is cost per ton and was used by PBO for the CSC
Yes, and that lead them to conclude building a Type 31 to the exact same standard as the RN would cost 1 billion pounds each.

Really good metric (eyes roll).

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:The T26 build cost is an unknown as MoD has so obfuscated the figures, which makes me pessimistic, but as said its a big ship, larger in size than all other current frigates, so do not think cost will be on the low side, the question for the RN on future ships is do they persevere with the likely high cost option of the T26 (waiting for the batch 2 T26 order contract value to be revealed to confirm) and with RNs limited budget only buy low numbers per class or take the option of ships based on the T31 or similar for frigates/destroyers for higher numbers (not ASW ships as think the all diesel direct propulsion system too noisy).
1. The MoD does not "obfuscate" T26 costs. It chooses not to reveal them. I do not like that policy one bit either but they've done that for some years since Fallon managed to reduce NAO scrutiny of his department.

2. There is no remaining question, 5 further Type 26 ships will be built. The budget is in place and contract negotiations are underway.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:So yes the Fincantieri US shipyards who build the Constellation can compete on price with the Spanish yards, that should be no surprise as Fincantieri in the top tier of world ship builders, the Italian yards build cruise ships that sell world wide as well as navy ships, SD67 quoted Fincantieri FREMM at €600 million/~£520 million, so it comes as no surprise that they recently won the Indonesian contract for six frigates with FREMM and will be one of the favourites to win the Greek contract.
Prices are very different in the US. The Constellations will be built by ex-Marinette yards in Wisconsin. Those yards do not build cruise ships. They have build LCS in the past and they had more than their fair share of quality issues and price overruns. I don't think any warship has been exported that has been built there ever. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:On the Constellation class, from US Congress document Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44972.pdf)

The Navy began procuring Constellation (FFG-62) class frigates (FFGs) in FY2020, and wants to procure a total of 20 FFG-62s. Congress funded the first FFG-62 in FY2020 at a cost of $1,281.2 million (i.e., about $1.3 billion) and the second in FY2021 at a cost of $1,053.1 million (i.e., about $1.1 billion). The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $1,087.9 million (i.e., about $1.1 billion) for the procurement of the third FFG-62, and $69.1 million in advance procurement (AP) funding for the fourth and fifth FFG-62s, which are programmed for procurement in one or more future fiscal years.

$1.1 billion is £780M, for the third hull.

In total, for the first three hulls, US is paying, $3.4 billion = £2.5B. Not a bad buy, I agree.
Just for info - the FY2022 $1,087.9 includes $132m Plan Costs, main driver the establishment of the Constellation Land Based Engineering Site, LBES, to test the propulsion system, ordered by Congress after the disasters with both LCS classes, the balance of $23m for Change Orders to establish technical baseline for US manufactured kit to replace components sourced from Italy/Europe.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote:
NickC wrote:The crude metric often used to price ships is cost per ton and was used by PBO for the CSC
Yes, and that lead them to conclude building a Type 31 to the exact same standard as the RN would cost 1 billion pounds each.

Really good metric (eyes roll).
Canada looks a horrendously expensive country to build ships :(

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote:Just for info - the FY2022 $1,087.9 includes $132m Plan Costs, main driver the establishment of the Constellation Land Based Engineering Site, LBES, to test the propulsion system, ordered by Congress after the disasters with both LCS classes, the balance of $23m for Change Orders to establish technical baseline for US manufactured kit to replace components sourced from Italy/Europe.
Thanks! So, $132m shall be included in R&D?

# I understand $23m is a build cost, no matter from where its requirement comes.

# by the way, the land-based T45 (PAAMS testbed) build cost is included in the T45 cost?

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote:
NickC wrote:So yes the Fincantieri US shipyards who build the Constellation can compete on price with the Spanish yards, that should be no surprise as Fincantieri in the top tier of world ship builders, the Italian yards build cruise ships that sell world wide as well as navy ships, SD67 quoted Fincantieri FREMM at €600 million/~£520 million, so it comes as no surprise that they recently won the Indonesian contract for six frigates with FREMM and will be one of the favourites to win the Greek contract.
Prices are very different in the US. The Constellations will be built by ex-Marinette yards in Wisconsin. Those yards do not build cruise ships. They have build LCS in the past and they had more than their fair share of quality issues and price overruns. I don't think any warship has been exported that has been built there ever. I could be wrong but I don't think so.
They are currently building four of the Lockheed (Gibbs & Cox designed) MMSC ships, Multi Mission Surface Combatant for the Saudis, which based on an approx 1,000t larger variant of the LCS Freedom class.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
NickC wrote:Just for info - the FY2022 $1,087.9 includes $132m Plan Costs, main driver the establishment of the Constellation Land Based Engineering Site, LBES, to test the propulsion system, ordered by Congress after the disasters with both LCS classes, the balance of $23m for Change Orders to establish technical baseline for US manufactured kit to replace components sourced from Italy/Europe.
Thanks! So, $132m shall be included in R&D?

# I understand $23m is a build cost, no matter from where its requirement comes.

# by the way, the land-based T45 (PAAMS testbed) build cost is included in the T45 cost?
It rather surprised me but the Constellation LBES to test the propulsion system is funded from the USN shipbuilding budget and not R&D, have not seen a figure but expect Constellation LBES will amount to several hundred million $ over the next few years.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
NickC wrote:The crude metric often used to price ships is cost per ton and was used by PBO for the CSC
Yes, and that lead them to conclude building a Type 31 to the exact same standard as the RN would cost 1 billion pounds each.

Really good metric (eyes roll).
Canada looks a horrendously expensive country to build ships :(
The reports discussion on how they came up with that estimate is comedy gold.

One reason given was that the Type 31's were more capable than the Iver Huitfelds so would be more expensive to build. Why do they think the T31's are more capable? Because they weigh more. I swear you must have written the report yourself.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
NickC wrote:So yes the Fincantieri US shipyards who build the Constellation can compete on price with the Spanish yards, that should be no surprise as Fincantieri in the top tier of world ship builders, the Italian yards build cruise ships that sell world wide as well as navy ships, SD67 quoted Fincantieri FREMM at €600 million/~£520 million, so it comes as no surprise that they recently won the Indonesian contract for six frigates with FREMM and will be one of the favourites to win the Greek contract.
Prices are very different in the US. The Constellations will be built by ex-Marinette yards in Wisconsin. Those yards do not build cruise ships. They have build LCS in the past and they had more than their fair share of quality issues and price overruns. I don't think any warship has been exported that has been built there ever. I could be wrong but I don't think so.
They are currently building four of the Lockheed (Gibbs & Cox designed) MMSC ships, Multi Mission Surface Combatant for the Saudis, which based on an approx 1,000t larger variant of the LCS Freedom class.
Ah yes, the ships that were so eye wateringly expensive, even the Saudi's balked at first. Not actually finished yet though are they?

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Such good & unexpected news that the T45 are getting CAMM !!! so presumably the T45 replacement will get at least the same or hopefully more than 72 missiles ? :thumbup:

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote: One reason given was that the Type 31's were more capable than the Iver Huitfelds so would be more expensive to build. Why do they think the T31's are more capable? Because they weigh more. I swear you must have written the report yourself.
Ron reverting to your Mr Nasty mode again, upset because i had to correct you by pointing out that the Fincantieri Marinette shipyards building the Saudi MMSC for export, get over it we all make mistakes.

On the T31 let me make my view crystal clear, think that the RN classifying it as frigate is a sick joke, its no more than an OPV.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

NickC wrote:On the T31 let me make my view crystal clear, think that the RN classifying it as frigate is a sick joke, its no more than an OPV.
It is a whole lot more than a OPV it is more a kin to a heavy corvette with its Radar , CMS , gun fit , CAMM ,

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Plus, don't forget, full naval build standards, (take your pick from increased subdivision, better damage control, evacuation pathways, multiple cable and conduit pathways, longitudinal separation of engines and generators, intermediate waterproof compartments between engine spaces, longitudinal bulkheads etc. etc.

OPVs are basically built to civilian standards plus, just with extra-thick grey paint ;)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply