Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Jake1992]

This is why at the very least we seem to be heading to a new Cold War but this time on two front with both China and Russia.

It was on two fronts the last time! The Korean and Vietnam wars and the sino-soviet agreements post the Chinese civil war and Mao coming to power in 1949 and the formation of SEATO

This is very different 2 front this time if we’re honest, we have a China that is building to match the US which if they carry on at this pace they won’t be too far off. And a resurgent Russia that is more than a match ( if not greater so ) for Western Europe with out US help.

[ArmChairCivvy]

we have a China that is building to match the US which if they carry on at this pace they won’t be too far off. And a resurgent Russia that is more than a match ( if not greater so ) for Western Europe with out US help.

Quite. Two-and-a-half wars has not been a US strategy for a couple of decades and what you describe explains well why they want to stop wasting resources on Central Command.

In this light AUKUS is a very practical initiative to check PLAN instead of relying on the hub-and-spoke alliances in the region for which the glue has been - and still is - the USN
- considering the power of Japan and the ROK to the North of Taiwan, it is the SCS that has bee the weak spot - with relatively weak allies
- the Quad may make the Chinese effort with their string of pearls look like playing with legos while the current 4 members put together an encirclement using duplos
- Vietnam has already offered India facilities and certainly does not look kindly on the past Chinese land grabs that have been at Vietnam's cost. And the tiny Singapore... a Chinese island as they used to describe themselves, musters capabilities that are quite impressive in the regional context. Not saying the two would join the Quad (as that would dilute the nature it has as a forum for strategic dialogue... to check China. What was it again that AUKUS has been set up to do?). But lots of interlocking mutual defence initiatives, with a clear purpose, rather than something 'loose' like SEATO used to be (and CENTO never even amounted to that much). - That's what I see as the direction of travel. And sending any ships that way means that they will have to be kitted out for a 'peer' oppo - be they HVUs or their escorts.

[SD67]

My take on it - QUAD, or "QUAD plus" (incl Korea, NZ, Vietnam) is the emerging Indo Pacific equivalent of NATO ie the broad anti-China alliance.

AUKUS is a much more specific agreement built around Australia's acquisition of SSNs and the resultant support needed from the UK and US.

There's an argument that maybe in the long term they could be rolled into one grouping, but short term it would probably cause more problems than it solved, especially with an anti-nuclear state like NZ.

In terms of the Russian threat to Europe - I don't buy it. The Russians' best weapon is energy. With 400 JSFs on order by BE/NL/CH/PL/DK/NO/UK plus the Polish army I think we're pretty safe.

[Repulse]

With the ability to globally deploy and sustain hard power through a CBG, SSNs and SFs, the UK has a lot to offer to AUKUS and the QUAD. Any conflict with China will primarily be in the maritime/ littoral zone.

If the British Army can get its act together and add the ability to globally deploy and sustain a Brigade (like it did in the Korean War), then that would also be an additional valuable contribution.

Whilst I agree a full scale invasion of Eastern Europe by Russia is far fetched, I can easily see its grey-zone operations increasing. Along with Gas, I can see an increasing importance of the Northern Sea Passage. Along with increased presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, Russia could additionally start to flex its muscles to control the flow of trade also.

This is why beyond @12 globally deployed OPV, Survey and MCM (mothership) ships the rest of the expeditionary fleet should be focused on projecting hard power. We should be looking at a 3rd CBG or more SSNs before playing arbitrary the frigate number game.

[Scimitar54]

Well you will need quite a few more Destroyers & Frigates to achieve (and sustain) that third CSG along with additional afloat replenishment & support vessels. When you have also got the SSN numbers up to something like they should be, you will still be in need of more Frigates. We also need to be able to deploy something that shows our “Presence” in more strength than the OPV/Patrol Frigate level, but somewhat less than sending a CSG. Those extra escorts are required, whether or not a third QEC (or Possibly a “Light”) Carrier could be built and operated.

[Repulse]

Scimitar54, fair questions, but I’m looking at this from a slightly different angle.

Whilst, I firmly believe that the UK should be able to act globally to independently defend its territory and people, virtually every scenario would be in partnership with allies. What we can’t and should do is try and be a mini superpower. The benchmark of independent action capability probably still remains the Falklands where we should have more than sufficient capability already, assuming the Army gets itself sorted out soon.

In terms of war fighting capability, putting aside the SSNs, it would be through a CBG. I would see the LRG platforms being designed to “self escort” during peacetime, and accompanied by a CBG during wartime. In peacetime a CBG should have a core of 4 RN escorts, wartime 6 RN escorts plus allied nation warships.

By having three CBGs, the RN can always have one deployed (probably in the Med or EoS) available to support forward based units, one in UK waters training and within X days notice to support North Atlantic and Baltic operations, and the third in refit.

Three CBGs mean 18 escorts, with in peacetime the “6 extra” escorts covering TAPS/FRE.

The big difference is that I would not try to “show presence in strength” outside of the regular visits of a CBG or a SSN. We aren’t a colonial superpower anymore and it raises the political temperature unnecessarily, plus we will never afford enough to do it.

[Ron5]

As has previously been stated the cost of a T26 is likely to drop to £800mn.

No it has not the program cost is still 8 billion for 8 ships 1 billion per ship if we are going to play that game then type 31 is 250 million per ship that is what Ballcocks has said

In fact the only true cost we know for type 26 at this point is 3.7 billion for 3 ships = 1.23 billion per ship meaning even if the next 5 were contracted for 800 million per ship the average per ship would still be 930 million each

The MoD 2018 Defence Equipment Plan quoted the first three T26 expected cost to completion at approval as £4,346 million, in 2019 the figure quoted dropped to £3,700 million, re the reduction of £646 million, small print notes “Type 26 Frigates. PPST19 does not include Demonstration Phase approval costs as this element of the incremental approval concluded in 2018”.

If these figures correct the first three ships to cost ~ £1,450 million each including the Demonstration Phase costs, to meet £8 billion budget for the eight ships the final five would need to come in at max of ~ £730 million each for an average cost of £1 billion each.

Dividing program cost by number of units does not give you a unit production cost.

[Ron5]

As has previously been stated the cost of a T26 is likely to drop to £800mn.

Bae says the first 3 are being built at 800 million each. That will come down 20% over the 2nd batch.

It is not hard to see how the next five will be 20% less as they will be using second hand radars and sonars taken from the T-23's well used I would think

That's not the reason for the predicted cost reduction. Productivity gains are.

[Scimitar54]

Repulse

I agree with your use of the word “will”. It is the lack of political will that limits what we are able to do (and afford). I agree with your idea of 3 x CSGs and number of peacetime/wartime escorts. What I would like to see in addition, is 4 x “Atlantic” Frigates (which could also encompass TAPS & FRE duties), 2 x “Gulf” Frigates, 2 x “Mediterranean” Frigates and 2 x “Indian Ocean” Frigates, with additional hulls in refit etc. to maintain numbers deployed or deployable. (The additional CSG “Wartime” assets could contribute to the numbers required here also).

[Tempest414]

Dividing program cost by number of units does not give you a unit production cost.

Yes and no BAE say they can get type 26 down to 800 million starting from ship 4 and Babcocks say they are building 5 Type 31's for 250 million per ship

However the program cost for Type 26 as it stands is 8 billion divided between 8 ships and the program cost for Type 31 is 2 billion divided between 5 ships so no matter what the yards say it is still costing the tax payer 10 billion for 13 ships and when they look at it they will see that Type 26 cost 1 billion per ship and type 31 cost 400 million

So the only reason it matters that BAE say they can build Type 26 for 800 million is exports and maybe future T-83 based on T-26

[Ron5]

BAE say they can get type 26 down to 800 million

For the fucking millionth time: Bae head of shipbuilding, has said on record that they are building the current 3 at 800 million each and future batches they expect that to come down by 20%.

That's not exactly earth shaking news, 99.9% of the contributors to this forum know that shipyards get more productive as they build more of a class of ship.

It only becomes controversial when it's discussed at which ship the productivity gains start to level out and how much the government imposed, idiotic "drum beat" undermines the productivity gains.

PS it matters because when we discuss the cost of building additional ships their net additional cost is just the build cost as all the one time costs have already been spent. What Joe Blow in the street thinks the costs are or what your even dumber member of parliament thinks, is irrelevant.

As an example, 6 T45's were built for approx 6 billion pounds. That 6 billion included the cost of building the ships plus a large amount of research, design, development and test (particularly the missile system). Gordon Brown stood up in parliament and said he was cancelling ships 7 & 8 because at 1 billion each, they were too expensive. He was lying. A later parliamentary question revealed the ships were built at an average of 650 million each, so ships 7 & 8 would have added 1.6 billion to the bill, not the 2 billion Gordo claimed. In other words, no additional research, design, development and test would be needed. That had all been done. Actually, because of the productivity curve, they most likely would have been under 600 million each.

[Tempest414]

For the fucking millionth time: Bae head of shipbuilding, has said on record that they are building the current 3 at 800 million each and future batches they expect that to come down by 20%.

FUCKING WIDE YOUR NECK IN

IT means fuck all what numpty nuts has said the BAE has had 3.7 billion to build 3 ships and tthe FUCKING program costs are 8 billion for 8 fucking ships

[donald_of_tokyo]

Dividing program cost by number of units does not give you a unit production cost.

Yes and no BAE say they can get type 26 down to 800 million starting from ship 4 and Babcocks say they are building 5 Type 31's for 250 million per ship

However the program cost for Type 26 as it stands is 8 billion divided between 8 ships and the program cost for Type 31 is 2 billion divided between 5 ships so no matter what the yards say it is still costing the tax payer 10 billion for 13 ships and when they look at it they will see that Type 26 cost 1 billion per ship and type 31 cost 400 million

So the only reason it matters that BAE say they can build Type 26 for 800 million is exports and maybe future T-83 based on T-26

Calm down guys. You two are talking about two different costs, and saying either is wrong, but still BOTH of you use similar calculation.

To add "one more T26" = 9th hull, it costs £750-800. Both agreed here.

Average cost of T26 = dividing the total cost by the unit number, if with current 8 hull program, T26 will be £1B each on average-cost (which differs from "unit-cost").

By the way, quoting £250M unit cost for T31 is wrong. The cost does NOT include its main weapon = SeaCeptor, while includes many initial costs. There are no comparable cost to this revealed for T26. So, when comparing T31 and T26, the only way is to say, the average unit cost of "5 T31 program" is £400M, and the average unit cost of "8 T26 program" is £1B. For me, that's it. Done.

[abc123]

Dividing program cost by number of units does not give you a unit production cost.

Yes and no BAE say they can get type 26 down to 800 million starting from ship 4 and Babcocks say they are building 5 Type 31's for 250 million per ship

However the program cost for Type 26 as it stands is 8 billion divided between 8 ships and the program cost for Type 31 is 2 billion divided between 5 ships so no matter what the yards say it is still costing the tax payer 10 billion for 13 ships and when they look at it they will see that Type 26 cost 1 billion per ship and type 31 cost 400 million

So the only reason it matters that BAE say they can build Type 26 for 800 million is exports and maybe future T-83 based on T-26

Calm down guys. You two are talking about two different costs, and saying either is wrong, but still BOTH of you use similar calculation.

To add "one more T26" = 9th hull, it costs £750-800. Both agreed here.

Average cost of T26 = dividing the total cost by the unit number, if with current 8 hull program, T26 will be £1B each on average-cost (which differs from "unit-cost").

By the way, quoting £250M unit cost for T31 is wrong. The cost does NOT include its main weapon = SeaCeptor, while includes many initial costs. There are no comparable cost to this revealed for T26. So, when comparing T31 and T26, the only way is to say, the average unit cost of "5 T31 program" is £400M, and the average unit cost of "8 T26 program" is £1B. For me, that's it. Done.

[SKB]

WIDE YOUR NECK IN

The correct phrase is "WIND your neck in", not wide.

[Tempest414]

Just as a side to get the average cost of Type 26 down to 800 million per ship we would need to build 8 more at 600 million per ship for a total program cost of 12.8 billion

ships 1 to 8 cost 8 billion = 1 billion per ship
ships 9 to 16 cost 4.8 billion = 600 million per ship

12.8 billion divided by 16 = 800 million

[Tempest414]

Now why would I say that . As I said up thread the cost to the UK tax payer for both the type 26 and the type 31 programs is 10 billion pounds and if type 32 costs another 2 billion we will be at 12 billion for 18 ships i.e just 2 extra ships so for the same money we could of had 16 type 26

[Lord Jim]

I must admit, I am starting to favour buying two or three more T-26 rather than the T-32. That together with the T-45 would give us between sixteen and seventeen high end vessels, and they number could be further increased if we purchased say eight T-83 to replace the T-45, to a maximum of nineteen. With the five T-31s given a possible light increase in capability and carrying out those operations not immediately needing a high end platform the Royal Navy would end up in a better position than it is in now and with a greater capability level in all likelihood.

[Tempest414]

Shame it will never happen

[SD67]

By the way, quoting £250M unit cost for T31 is wrong. The cost does NOT include its main weapon = SeaCeptor, while includes many initial costs. There are no comparable cost to this revealed for T26. So, when comparing T31 and T26, the only way is to say, the average unit cost of "5 T31 program" is £400M, and the average unit cost of "8 T26 program" is £1B. For me, that's it. Done.

Donald San, we've had this conversation over dozens of posts, I don't understand why you keep insisting you have some sort of definitive knowledge on these costings. You don't. None of us do.

In terms of contracts let so far (not projections, claims or marketing spin) the publicly available info is :

Type 26 :
2010 : 140 million for initial design
2015 : 859 million demonstration phase (includes some shore-based test facilities)
2017 : 3.7 billion for build

We don't know exactly what is covered by each stage. The demonstration phase contract alone is 170 pages long :
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... gramme.pdf

Entirely unclear whether any of this includes the cost of Sea Ceptor transferred over from T23 or of Mk45mod4. ( We also know it doesn't include anything to fill the Mk41s, or the Interim SSGW. )

Type 31 :
1.25 bn to Babcock for 5 ships
2.0 bn total program cost including Sea Ceptor

https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp ... 0.2020.pdf
Direct quote :
John Howie
Yeah, so there’s two categories of equipment in the programme, Sash. There’s equipment that we are providing as part of the programme,
and that includes the guns, the Thales mission system, the integrated navigation and bridge, et cetera, and then there’s the government-furnished assets, which would include things like the Sea Sceptre missile, and a lot of it actually is information as well as equipment. So, our £250 million doesn’t include the cost of the GFE, but it does include the cost of, effectively, the baseline equipment including the guns, the engines, gearboxes, propellers, et cetera.

The best hard numbers in terms of contracts signed to date are therefore 1562 per unit for T26, 400 per unit for T31. That should be close to total program cost, except possibly not including mk45 guns for the T26. Neither includes future up arming. Neither includes much in the way of new manufacturing facilities although Babcock has at least built a new shed at Rosyth and new fab lines

https://www.sme.org/technologies/articl ... ion-lines/

R&D is included for both - in the case of T31 it is the royalty that Babcock pay to OMT, which they absorb into their costs.

Future cost reductions are entirely guesswork. Theoretically BAE should reduce their costs by a greater % simply because they have more fat to cut, but you're running up against the inherent inefficiencies of the two yard build. Looking at HMS Glasgow sitting outside in the Scottish winter under scaffolding and tarps is not a pretty picture. Having Rosyth as a benchmark will help keep them honest.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The best hard numbers in terms of contracts signed to date are therefore 1562 per unit for T26, 400 per unit for T31.

Having Rosyth as a benchmark will help keep them honest.

The whole point of the latter prgrm (except as for the nice multiple too, price-wise).

[Tempest414]

We should be looking at a 3rd CBG

Best we can hope for now is 1 or 2 LHA's and for type 32 to be half decent .

If we could get 1 or 2 LHA's say 230 x 40 meters capable of operating say 10 F-35 and 10 helicopters or 25 helicopters without the F-35's and a type 32 based on A-140 with a 127mm , 48 CAMM and 8 SSGW plus say 5 containerized VDS for both type 31/32 then maybe we could have 2 x CSG's with 1 x carrier , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 plus RFA's and 2 LSG's with 1 x LHA's , 1 x Bay , 2 x T-32, 1 x T-31 plus a Wave class. This would allow one of thee groups to be EoS at anytime and one in the Atlantic

[Tempest414]

In terms of contracts let so far (not projections, claims or marketing spin) the publicly available info is :

Type 26 :
2010 : 140 million for initial design
2015 : 859 million demonstration phase (includes some shore-based test facilities)
2017 : 3.7 billion for build

We don't know exactly what is covered by each stage. The demonstration phase contract alone is 170 pages long :
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... gramme.pdf

Entirely unclear whether any of this includes the cost of Sea Ceptor transferred over from T23 or of Mk45mod4. ( We also know it doesn't include anything to fill the Mk41s, or the Interim SSGW. )

Type 31 :
1.25 bn to Babcock for 5 ships
2.0 bn total program cost including Sea Ceptor

So with the figures laid out above the type 26 program is now at 4.6 billion meaning BAE will have to build the last 5 ships for 3.4 billion

[donald_of_tokyo]

By the way, quoting £250M unit cost for T31 is wrong. The cost does NOT include its main weapon = SeaCeptor, while includes many initial costs. There are no comparable cost to this revealed for T26. So, when comparing T31 and T26, the only way is to say, the average unit cost of "5 T31 program" is £400M, and the average unit cost of "8 T26 program" is £1B. For me, that's it. Done.

Donald San, we've had this conversation over dozens of posts, I don't understand why you keep insisting you have some sort of definitive knowledge on these costings. You don't. None of us do.

In terms of contracts let so far (not projections, claims or marketing spin) the publicly available info is :

Type 26 :
2010 : 140 million for initial design
2015 : 859 million demonstration phase (includes some shore-based test facilities)
2017 : 3.7 billion for build

We don't know exactly what is covered by each stage. The demonstration phase contract alone is 170 pages long :
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... gramme.pdf

Entirely unclear whether any of this includes the cost of Sea Ceptor transferred over from T23 or of Mk45mod4. ( We also know it doesn't include anything to fill the Mk41s, or the Interim SSGW. )

Type 31 :
1.25 bn to Babcock for 5 ships
2.0 bn total program cost including Sea Ceptor

https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp ... 0.2020.pdf
Direct quote :
John Howie
Yeah, so there’s two categories of equipment in the programme, Sash. There’s equipment that we are providing as part of the programme,
and that includes the guns, the Thales mission system, the integrated navigation and bridge, et cetera, and then there’s the government-furnished assets, which would include things like the Sea Sceptre missile, and a lot of it actually is information as well as equipment. So, our £250 million doesn’t include the cost of the GFE, but it does include the cost of, effectively, the baseline equipment including the guns, the engines, gearboxes, propellers, et cetera.

The best hard numbers in terms of contracts signed to date are therefore 1562 per unit for T26, 400 per unit for T31. That should be close to total program cost, except possibly not including mk45 guns for the T26. Neither includes future up arming. Neither includes much in the way of new manufacturing facilities although Babcock has at least built a new shed at Rosyth and new fab lines

https://www.sme.org/technologies/articl ... ion-lines/

R&D is included for both - in the case of T31 it is the royalty that Babcock pay to OMT, which they absorb into their costs.

Future cost reductions are entirely guesswork. Theoretically BAE should reduce their costs by a greater % simply because they have more fat to cut, but you're running up against the inherent inefficiencies of the two yard build. Looking at HMS Glasgow sitting outside in the Scottish winter under scaffolding and tarps is not a pretty picture. Having Rosyth as a benchmark will help keep them honest.

I think we are saying completely the same thing.

One thing differ is, for me T26 does not include "859 million demonstration phase".
I agree it is arguable, but for me, adding its cost to T26 is similar to adding Nimrod MRA4 cost to P-8A cost.

Second thing is, you think learning curve is guess work, I think it is science. Of course, the follow on ship may cost more than £800M, but it must have its reason (e.g. new radar, new something etc...).

But other than these two, I think we two are talking the same thing. Actually, almost completely the same, for me.

[Repulse]

Tempest414, the whole idea of the LRG operating independently of a CBG protective umbrella outside of a relatively benign environment is a red herring.

By all means let’s put a 57mm gun and CAMM on the MRSS so it can self escort in a number of scenarios but let’s not waste money on a low grade escort force.

In terms of best case, my vote is for another T26, upgrade to the 5 T31s, and another 5 B2+ Rivers for the £2bn.