Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Tempest414 wrote: 19 Nov 2022, 14:11 For me any tire 2 ship should be half the cost of a tire 1 ship given that both type 45 and type 26 are 1 billion per ship and type 31 is 400 million there is some room left to spend a bit more

What I would like to see in place of of any type 32 is a 2.5 billion pound program to build 3 more type 31 and 3 more River B2's giving 8 of each class and this is what I would like to see program

3 x type 31 @ 375 million each = 1.12 billion
3 x RB2's @ 100 million each = 300 million
8 x 57mm guns for the RB2's = 70 million
8 x Camcopter S-300 for the RB2's = 30 million
8 x sets of 8 NSM for T-31= 200 million
8 x Containerised TAS to be used by both classes =240 million
16 x 8 cell Mk-41 =150 million
Extra CAMM for Type 31 to bring them to 30 each 200 million

this would leave money for over run and other stuff
When I started my intention was to take what could be the money for type 32 and add a few ships and make the rest of the patrol fleet below C1 into proper C2 & C3 and with the above program I still think we could end up with

8 x Type 31 with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM and 16 Mk-41 Plus helicopter with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom

8 x River B2 with 1 x 57mm , 10 x Hero 120 , Camcopter S-300 with 6 LMM

plus 6 containerised TAS systems and maybe 4 x 8 round containerised Rapid Ranger ( Sea Ranger) systems for the RB2's

As said by some here we could get 2 or 3 x type 26 depending on cost but for me I would rather have 16 very good C2 & C3 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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 10:42 For me any tire 2 ship should be half the cost of a tire 1 ship given that both type 45 and type 26 are 1 billion per ship and type 31 is 400 million there is some room left to spend a bit more

What I would like to see in place of of any type 32 is a 2.5 billion pound program to build 3 more type 31 and 3 more River B2's giving 8 of each class and this is what I would like to see program

3 x type 31 @ 375 million each = 1.12 billion
3 x RB2's @ 100 million each = 300 million
8 x 57mm guns for the RB2's = 70 million
8 x Camcopter S-300 for the RB2's = 30 million
8 x sets of 8 NSM for T-31= 200 million
8 x Containerised TAS to be used by both classes =240 million
16 x 8 cell Mk-41 =150 million
Extra CAMM for Type 31 to bring them to 30 each 200 million

this would leave money for over run and other stuff
Where is the TLAM control unit cost? Where is the TLAM integration cost?

Tbenz
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 25 Feb 2017, 17:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tbenz »

One area where we could save some money to reinvest in higher priority areas is the 5-inch gun on the Type 26s. I have seen figures of up to £60 million each for these weapons. The Type 26s are our blue water submarine hunters and we are unlikely to want to expose the small number we have to attack by employing them for naval gunfire support. In an ideal world, all of our escorts would have a 5-inch gun, however the overall budget is limited and that is not going to change.

We should probably fit them with the 57mm gun instead. We will no doubt incur financial penalties for cancelling the first 3 5-inch guns, but a decision needs taking before ordering the second batch of 5. If the 57mm gun is £20 million (?), then we could save up to £40 million per ship. We should also fit the Type 45s with the 57mm, giving commonality across the escort fleet once the Type 23s leave service with their 4.5-inch guns.

There is a lot that could be done with the remaining funds - my preference would be upgrading the Type 31s to decent tier two escorts, but others will no doubt take a different view.

On a separate note, if we do end up ordering 5 Type 32s in a decent timeframe, then perhaps we fit the 5 Type 31s with Mk.41 VLS carrying FCASW/FOSW and fit NSM to the Type 32s.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 12:30
Tempest414 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 10:42 For me any tire 2 ship should be half the cost of a tire 1 ship given that both type 45 and type 26 are 1 billion per ship and type 31 is 400 million there is some room left to spend a bit more

What I would like to see in place of of any type 32 is a 2.5 billion pound program to build 3 more type 31 and 3 more River B2's giving 8 of each class and this is what I would like to see program

3 x type 31 @ 375 million each = 1.12 billion
3 x RB2's @ 100 million each = 300 million
8 x 57mm guns for the RB2's = 70 million
8 x Camcopter S-300 for the RB2's = 30 million
8 x sets of 8 NSM for T-31= 200 million
8 x Containerised TAS to be used by both classes =240 million
16 x 8 cell Mk-41 =150 million
Extra CAMM for Type 31 to bring them to 30 each 200 million

this would leave money for over run and other stuff
Where is the TLAM control unit cost? Where is the TLAM integration cost?
Well as you can see from the figures above it would leave around 190 million as I believe type 31 will come in with 24 CAMM remove that 200 million from the list to give you 390 million may cover it

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

As a matter of policy I’d have thought we would want all escorts of frigate size and upwards to carry at least 8 of the RNs standard VLS (ie wherever you see a T45/83, T26 or T31/32 you know they could launch a missile with a 1500+ km range).

Together with the ISR support that seems to me to be a fairly potent capability to take with you wherever you are in the world.

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 »

But, 8-cell VLS is very cheap, but mission integration and electronics, software are expensive. For what we shall waste that money to have, say, ~20 ships each with 8-cell VLS = 160 cell, when we probably can get ~10 ships with 32-cell each with similar money = 320 cells?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 09:47
SW1 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 08:26
tomuk wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 05:58
SW1 wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 22:12 If you were looking to fit 8 tomahawk to a type 31 why would they need to be in a VL system. They could be canister launched like nsm.
There aren't any current box launched tomahawks, they were only ever fitted to 17 ships which included 5 nuclear cruisers and 4 Iowa Class battleship and have been out of service for years.
Are the US marines not starting to look at such things for land based applications?
BAE Inc offer the Adaptable Deck Launcher, ADL, Capable of launching multiple missile types from multiple platforms for multiple mission scenarios which meets the need for a fixed angle, deck-mounted launching system

Have they sold any of these ADL? I believe although it is offered in tactical and strike length the shore trials so far were only with quad packed ESSM.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »



Time to limit horizons…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 15:03

Time to limit horizons…
NEVER!!!!! LOL :twisted:

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 »

The same information: from https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... o-2032.pdf

p.20 Capabilities not included in the 2022–2032 Plan

- Type 32 frigates and Multi Role Support Ships (MRSS): In July 2022 Navy Command withdrew its plans for Type 32 frigates and MRSS because of concerns about unaffordability. The revised costing profile is likely to be significantly higher.

- Enabling Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary: The enhancement option funded by the Integrated Review has been cancelled. The Ministry of Defence (the Department) decided to extend RFA Argus, based on the Navy deeming it cost-effective and offering greater utility.

- Type 83 destroyer: Given that the Department needs to replace the Type 45 destroyer between 2035 and 2038, it is unlikely that it will not need funding before 2032. The Plan does not include allocated funding as the project is in concept phase, meaning that detailed cost estimates and profiles are not yet available.

- Mine Hunting Capability Block 1 and Block 2 : Mine Hunting Capability equipment support remains unfunded.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 10:01 My problem is two fold firstly that I don't believe we could get type 26 for 800 million at anytime ( this just me and would would like to be proven wrong by BAE building a T-26 for this money )
3.7bn for the first three equates to £1.3bn for development and design, and each ship costing 800m to build. As building gets more efficient over the production run means B2 could allow the price to be cute by 20%.

From a Sir Simon Lister interview last year

Please don't forget that figure excludes a lot of the expense needed to get a warship into service. Shore facilities etc.

PS the batch 2 contract was 5 ships for 4.2 billion. Seems reasonable to expect a further 3 would cost 3/5 of 4.2 billion i.e. 2.5 bill.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 17:09 From a Sir Simon Lister interview last year
Was this before or after he sent the £233m bill to MOD for the T26 cost increases?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 17:09
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 10:01 My problem is two fold firstly that I don't believe we could get type 26 for 800 million at anytime ( this just me and would would like to be proven wrong by BAE building a T-26 for this money )
3.7bn for the first three equates to £1.3bn for development and design, and each ship costing 800m to build. As building gets more efficient over the production run means B2 could allow the price to be cute by 20%.

From a Sir Simon Lister interview last year

Please don't forget that figure excludes a lot of the expense needed to get a warship into service. Shore facilities etc.

PS the batch 2 contract was 5 ships for 4.2 billion. Seems reasonable to expect a further 3 would cost 3/5 of 4.2 billion i.e. 2.5 bill.
No it doesn't, we've been through this a heap of times, there were two separate design contracts which were not included in the 3.7. These were 140 million pre maingate and 850 million demonstration phase respectively. The 3.7 was pure build (though of course with a first of class you'll have training, recruitment, maybe some jigs, tools. But there was no big investment in Govan until now, hence why Glasgow is being stitched together outside under a tarp )
I traced this back to the actual budget info - different contracts, different phases, different budgets.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 17:18
Ron5 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 17:09 From a Sir Simon Lister interview last year
Was this before or after he sent the £233m bill to MOD for the T26 cost increases?
Before as I think you know. Also before the Batch 2 contract for 5 ships at 4.2 billion.

It's difficult to subtract the effect of inflation. Today's pound is worth significantly less than when the B1 contract was signed.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 17:22 The 3.7 was pure build
If you think that, your tracing was piss poor. The majority of the design work was done after the contract was let.

And what exactly was done for the pre-maingate and demonstration phases? This project has been going on for decades, a lot of time and money for R&D.

And explain the batch 2 contract. Ya think the cost of building the ships came down by a half? Errr no.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

I think all those folks that are clamoring for TLAM to be added to an overgrown OPV need to do a bit of research on how the UK has used TLAMs in the past and ask themselves why that was so.

Might also check how many TLAMs the UK has or had.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 17:09
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 10:01 My problem is two fold firstly that I don't believe we could get type 26 for 800 million at anytime ( this just me and would would like to be proven wrong by BAE building a T-26 for this money )
3.7bn for the first three equates to £1.3bn for development and design, and each ship costing 800m to build. As building gets more efficient over the production run means B2 could allow the price to be cute by 20%.

From a Sir Simon Lister interview last year

Please don't forget that figure excludes a lot of the expense needed to get a warship into service. Shore facilities etc.

PS the batch 2 contract was 5 ships for 4.2 billion. Seems reasonable to expect a further 3 would cost 3/5 of 4.2 billion i.e. 2.5 bill.
As said I would love to be proven wrong and by this I mean BAE building and handing over a type 26 for 800 million. My fear is we will see the cost of the Batch 2's go up and we will see bills for the odd 200 million handed in.

As said before the cost for the first 8 ships stands at 1.02 billion per ship

Also as said within my plan laid out above my aim was to try and add 6 new ships to the fleet and upgrade the 5 Type 31's and River B2's to a better C2 & C3 order and again my fear would be is we got 2 or 3 Type 26 but then had to spend another 1 billion upgrading the C2 & C3 fleets plus we lose 3 Rivers

On top of this by going my rote the first ships could be in the water by 2029 were if we wait for more type 26's you are looking at 2035

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 17:37 I think all those folks that are clamoring for TLAM to be added to an overgrown OPV need to do a bit of research on how the UK has used TLAMs in the past and ask themselves why that was so.

Might also check how many TLAMs the UK has or had.
What has gone before is well known and it is what it is however what can and can't be done in the future is up for grabs

to date the UK has had 194 tomahawks and the reason they are not on the escorts is none of them have strike length cells

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Ron5 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 17:37 I think all those folks that are clamoring for TLAM to be added to an overgrown OPV need to do a bit of research on how the UK has used TLAMs in the past and ask themselves why that was so.

Might also check how many TLAMs the UK has or had.
Simple - no other launch vessels available. You're only going to risk firing TLAM from a £1.5 billion SSN if the intended recipient has absolutely no anti-sub capability.

In the April 2018 attacks on Syria it was widely reported the UK had ordered at least one SSN to within TLAM range. Not used because the area was crawling with Russian assets waiting to detect a launch so they could pinpoint the sub. France used surface launched SCALP.

Last I heard TLAM stock was about 60.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

At the end of the Cold War the ssn needed a role as the navy were worried they would be endangered as their primary role had disappeared almost overnight so they were given tlam there was no desire to fit such a weapon to the surface fleet as a result. Fast fwd to now and well things have changed, everything is now protect the carriers and so there is less of a desire to fit tlam to escorts….

Size of the targeting cells limit employment options. The cost of maintaining a stock is not unique to tlam it’s endemic but with tlam there is a belief uncle Sam will have us front of queue when we need them, we will see. There is too much interest in buying more/new platforms than plugging the gaps in the none sexy bits.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

The other thing to remember about TLAM is it isn't much use if the enemy has decent anti air. A 5m long 1500kg missile lumbering along at 550 knots isn't very stealthy.

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 »

tomuk wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 20:14 The other thing to remember about TLAM is it isn't much use if the enemy has decent anti air. A 5m long 1500kg missile lumbering along at 550 knots isn't very stealthy.
And therefore very cheap. FCASW will cost at least three times (subsonic version) and nearly ten times (if hypersonic). Supersonic case will be in the middle.

RN needs ammo stock to fight the war, and TLAM gives us such option.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 22:51
tomuk wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 20:14 The other thing to remember about TLAM is it isn't much use if the enemy has decent anti air. A 5m long 1500kg missile lumbering along at 550 knots isn't very stealthy.
And therefore very cheap. FCASW will cost at least three times (subsonic version) and nearly ten times (if hypersonic). Supersonic case will be in the middle.

RN needs ammo stock to fight the war, and TLAM gives us such option.
They are about $2m a pop and as seen most recently in Syria you have to fire a shed load. Didn't the US fire over fifty at one airfield.

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 »

tomuk wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 23:59They are about $2m a pop and as seen most recently in Syria you have to fire a shed load. Didn't the US fire over fifty at one airfield.
And firing "over fifty" FCASW will be prohibitably expensive, while there shall be "over fifty" targets to hit when a hot war happens. And, not all of them is highly defended.

Use cheap TLAM for less defended targets (and those on terrorists' camps), use FCASW for highly defended targets, is what I am proposing.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 18:13
Ron5 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 17:37 I think all those folks that are clamoring for TLAM to be added to an overgrown OPV need to do a bit of research on how the UK has used TLAMs in the past and ask themselves why that was so.

Might also check how many TLAMs the UK has or had.
What has gone before is well known and it is what it is however what can and can't be done in the future is up for grabs

to date the UK has had 194 tomahawks and the reason they are not on the escorts is none of them have strike length cells
To be clear on this though...the UK stockpile has always been around 65. We may have bought 194 over the years to replace missiles used in training and combat, but the number held in the stockpile has not changed dramatically.

Post Reply