Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Timmymagic wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 11:26
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.
the question was how many we have and had so we have had 194 we now have around 65

however none of this matters if we were to fit strike length VLS on Type 31 and add TLAM's we would just buy more of a missile system we already have

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

65? That sounds very low

One of the upsides of FCASW in my mind is that because it's a new missile, there will need to be a substantial initial production run to justify the investment, I'm guessing around 1000 missiles split evenly. So indirectly rebuilding stocks

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

SD67 wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 12:13 65? That sounds very low

One of the upsides of FCASW in my mind is that because it's a new missile, there will need to be a substantial initial production run to justify the investment, I'm guessing around 1000 missiles split evenly. So indirectly rebuilding stocks
Think about it...thats enough to fully load 5 SSN's with 12 rounds each. Thats been enough for us in recent wars to show willing.....

FCASW will be replacing Storm Shadow (and potentially Tomahawk and providing AShM to T26). We originally purchased over 900 Storm Shadow. If you look at how many Harpoon we've had and Tomahawk a purchase of 1,100 should do us.... a number of those would be encapsulated so would purely be for the SSN's however. In terms of the split between the 2 missile types (Stealthy, subsonic and long range vs Supersonic, medium range) I'd hope we'd go with a 75/25 split in favour of stealthy as that is far more likely to be used.

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: 29 Nov 2022, 18:02 As said before the cost for the first 8 ships stands at 1.02 billion per ship
We are discussing the cost to build each ship. So either you are claiming the entire 3.7billoin of the B1 contract was for build. Which you will find impossible to support with any published material. Or you are deliberately muddying the water by including fixed non-build costs into your Batch 1 calculations and not in Batch 2. Intellectually dishonest to say the least.

Anyhow, let's put the discussion to one side.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

RichardIC wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 18:37
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.
Firstly, that Syrian story came directly from Putin. It had, and has, absolutely zero base in fact.

Secondly, I was trying to have folks think on how TLAMS have been used in the past. Not from which platforms they were fired.

I think I am correct in saying they were 100% used in small numbers in support of coalition activities involving the Americans and that America supplied 100% of the targeting information. As such they're use was primarily political in that they showed the world the the US was not acting alone.

How that translates to a British patrol frigate carrying a slack handful (i.e. militarily insignificant) in the middle of the Pacific or Indian Oceans, is way beyond me.

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: 30 Nov 2022, 18:37
RichardIC wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 18:37
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.
Firstly, that Syrian story came directly from Putin. It had, and has, absolutely zero base in fact.

Secondly, I was trying to have folks think on how TLAMS have been used in the past. Not from which platforms they were fired.

I think I am correct in saying they were 100% used in small numbers in support of coalition activities involving the Americans and that America supplied 100% of the targeting information. As such they're use was primarily political in that they showed the world the the US was not acting alone.

How that translates to a British patrol frigate carrying a slack handful (i.e. militarily insignificant) in the middle of the Pacific or Indian Oceans, is way beyond me.
Glad you’re kept updated on exactly where our subs are so you can share with us.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

You even answer your own questions within a single post.

“I am correct in saying they were 100% used in small numbers in support of coalition activities involving the Americans and that America supplied 100% of the targeting information. As such they're use was primarily political in that they showed the world the the US was not acting alone.”

Which

“translates to a British patrol frigate carrying a slack handful in the middle of the Pacific or Indian Oceans. As we are militarily insignificant in this region of the world.”

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 18:26
Tempest414 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 18:02 As said before the cost for the first 8 ships stands at 1.02 billion per ship
We are discussing the cost to build each ship. So either you are claiming the entire 3.7billoin of the B1 contract was for build. Which you will find impossible to support with any published material. Or you are deliberately muddying the water by including fixed non-build costs into your Batch 1 calculations and not in Batch 2. Intellectually dishonest to say the least.

Anyhow, let's put the discussion to one side.
So how much would you like to pull aside from the 3.933 billion for design work in the Batch 1 contract and we can add that to the 860 million that BAE had before the 3.7 billion contact for design work plus what was spent on long lead items for batch 2 before the 4.2 contact was signed I know that in 2021 there was an order for 100 million for batch 2 parts

look you can poor as much grease on the monkey as you like but T-26 No-9 will not be 800 million . Now we have all known for many years now that the program cost for type 26 was 8 billion pounds i.e 1 billion per ship and no one could let that slip so they had to take the 4.2 and get on with it they have already come back for more once

Now the true cost of the type 26 is over 9 billion pounds this is not all BAE in the main it is the RN , MOD

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: 30 Nov 2022, 19:25
Ron5 wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 18:26
Tempest414 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 18:02 As said before the cost for the first 8 ships stands at 1.02 billion per ship
We are discussing the cost to build each ship. So either you are claiming the entire 3.7billoin of the B1 contract was for build. Which you will find impossible to support with any published material. Or you are deliberately muddying the water by including fixed non-build costs into your Batch 1 calculations and not in Batch 2. Intellectually dishonest to say the least.

Anyhow, let's put the discussion to one side.
So how much would you like to pull aside from the 3.933 billion for design work in the Batch 1 contract and we can add that to the 860 million that BAE had before the 3.7 billion contact for design work plus what was spent on long lead items for batch 2 before the 4.2 contact was signed I know that in 2021 there was an order for 100 million for batch 2 parts

look you can poor as much grease on the monkey as you like but T-26 No-9 will not be 800 million . Now we have all known for many years now that the program cost for type 26 was 8 billion pounds i.e 1 billion per ship and no one could let that slip so they had to take the 4.2 and get on with it they have already come back for more once

Now the true cost of the type 26 is over 9 billion pounds this is not all BAE in the main it is the RN , MOD
We need Goerge of Xaviel-san to "ask" what the £4.2B for 5 B2 T26 contains. In case of £3.7Bn for the 1st 3 T26, it contained all the long lead items. It was clearly stated. This is why I think "£4.2B for 5 B2 T26" contains every thing, so that build cost for T26 is £840M per unit. That's it.

Design cost of T26 differs if you include the old one or not. I understand it is like including the Nimrod MRA4 development cost into P-8A procurement cost, but I am not sure. What I am sure is, at least French FREMM program states "3 unit cost" equivalent money as its "design and initial costs". This is fact.

3.9+4.2 = 8.1Bn. Divided by 3 + 8 gives you £730M.

If "design and initial costs" equates to 2 unit cost, then 8.1Bn divided by 2 + 8 gives you £810M.

That's it for me...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 22:13
Tempest414 wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 19:25
Ron5 wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 18:26
Tempest414 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 18:02 As said before the cost for the first 8 ships stands at 1.02 billion per ship
We are discussing the cost to build each ship. So either you are claiming the entire 3.7billoin of the B1 contract was for build. Which you will find impossible to support with any published material. Or you are deliberately muddying the water by including fixed non-build costs into your Batch 1 calculations and not in Batch 2. Intellectually dishonest to say the least.

Anyhow, let's put the discussion to one side.
So how much would you like to pull aside from the 3.933 billion for design work in the Batch 1 contract and we can add that to the 860 million that BAE had before the 3.7 billion contact for design work plus what was spent on long lead items for batch 2 before the 4.2 contact was signed I know that in 2021 there was an order for 100 million for batch 2 parts

look you can poor as much grease on the monkey as you like but T-26 No-9 will not be 800 million . Now we have all known for many years now that the program cost for type 26 was 8 billion pounds i.e 1 billion per ship and no one could let that slip so they had to take the 4.2 and get on with it they have already come back for more once

Now the true cost of the type 26 is over 9 billion pounds this is not all BAE in the main it is the RN , MOD
We need Goerge of Xaviel-san to "ask" what the £4.2B for 5 B2 T26 contains. In case of £3.7Bn for the 1st 3 T26, it contained all the long lead items. It was clearly stated. This is why I think "£4.2B for 5 B2 T26" contains every thing, so that build cost for T26 is £840M per unit. That's it.

Design cost of T26 differs if you include the old one or not. I understand it is like including the Nimrod MRA4 development cost into P-8A procurement cost, but I am not sure. What I am sure is, at least French FREMM program states "3 unit cost" equivalent money as its "design and initial costs". This is fact.

3.9+4.2 = 8.1Bn. Divided by 3 + 8 gives you £730M.

If "design and initial costs" equates to 2 unit cost, then 8.1Bn divided by 2 + 8 gives you £810M.

That's it for me...
Using FREMM is interesting average cost of a FREMM is about 610 million across a 22 ship build so the design and initial costs come to 1.8 billion less than 2 type 26

using the MRA4 - P8 thing is so way off MRA4 was a british project that started and finished and not one part of it saw its way to the P8 project

I will now quote the 2015 859 million pound contract

The new contract will include investment in long lead items for the first 3 ships and shore testing facilities.
There will also be investment in key equipment for the first 3 ships including gas turbines , diesel generators and steering gear
A team from BAE and MOD are working together to complete the detailed design and porcure key equipment and prepare the manufacturing proposal to be submitted .

I shall now quote the 2020 contact for 100 million. This is for long lead items for the Batch 2 ships

So as you can see the 2015 859 million contract was very much part of the type 26 project and must now be added to the 3.9 billion batch 1 order and 4.2 batch 2 order and now takes the type 26 program to 8.87 billion

to be clear what was in the 859 million 2015 contract

building a onshore testing site
Babcocks = Air weapons handing system
David Brown = gear boxes and test kit
GE = electric motors and drive system plus test kit
Raytheon = Bridge nav systems
RR = gas turbines
RW Davis = Uptakes and down takes

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 09:27 using the MRA4 - P8 thing is so way off MRA4 was a british project that started and finished and not one part of it saw its way to the P8 project
Apart from the entire mission system that the UK pretty much funded via Nimrod...

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: 30 Nov 2022, 22:13
If "design and initial costs" equates to 2 unit cost, then 8.1Bn divided by 2 + 8 gives you £810M.

That's it for me...
Donald-san

Pre maingate (ie pre2015) : 140 m
Demonstration Phase (ie design) : 850 m
Build batch 1 : 3.9 billion
Build Batch 2 : 4.2 billion

Program cost to date = 9090 = 1136/ ship
Build cost = 8100 = 1012 per ship
Of course the build cost is on a downward trajectory

The Long lead items thing is a red herring, that's about the timing of the cashflow.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Timmymagic wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 10:11
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 09:27 using the MRA4 - P8 thing is so way off MRA4 was a british project that started and finished and not one part of it saw its way to the P8 project
Apart from the entire mission system that the UK pretty much funded via Nimrod...
Is that right if so MRA4 was not a complete wast of money and we got something from it good

However this dose not change the fact that the 860 million 2015 contract was a major part of the type 26 program and it was clearly stated in the 2015 press release that as part of this 860 million BAE and the MOD were working together to complete detailed design work and prepare the Manufacturing proposeal there for this has to added to the 3.9 and 4.2 billion pound manufacturing contracts

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 10:55
Is that right if so MRA4 was not a complete wast of money and we got something from it good
Well the US got a mission system funded and all the IP...it was an LM product.

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: 01 Dec 2022, 10:23 Build cost = 8100 = 1012 per ship
?? Sorry I could not understand your calculation here.
Initial 3 hull "average" cost is higher than 5 more hulls. It includes many detailed design costs and initial cost, I understand?

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: 01 Dec 2022, 10:55
Timmymagic wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 10:11
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 09:27 using the MRA4 - P8 thing is so way off MRA4 was a british project that started and finished and not one part of it saw its way to the P8 project
Apart from the entire mission system that the UK pretty much funded via Nimrod...
Is that right if so MRA4 was not a complete wast of money and we got something from it good

However this dose not change the fact that the 860 million 2015 contract was a major part of the type 26 program and it was clearly stated in the 2015 press release that as part of this 860 million BAE and the MOD were working together to complete detailed design work and prepare the Manufacturing proposeal there for this has to added to the 3.9 and 4.2 billion pound manufacturing contracts
So that means T26 ALSO (similar to FREMM-FR) had 3-unit cost equivalent detailed design and initial cost. No big problem for me... Sorry, I could not get your point...
Timmymagic wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 10:11
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 09:27 using the MRA4 - P8 thing is so way off MRA4 was a british project that started and finished and not one part of it saw its way to the P8 project
Apart from the entire mission system that the UK pretty much funded via Nimrod...
I don't want to say Nimrod cost shall be added to P-8 cost. But, it includes many of the missions systems adopted on P-8. I can agree the "860 million 2015 contract" can be added to T26 cost, which does not change my calculation (just its initial cost is the same as FREMM = 3 unit cost equivalent). But, it does contain many of the mission systems development cost finally adopted on the T26, "partly" resembling the "Nimrod cost for P-8". Of course, not all.

Anyway I am happy to admit T26 initial cost amounted to as much as 3 unit cost. This is safer for me, because it is the same with FREMM case. (note that this FREMM cost is only talking about French budget, not including Italian ones).

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Are the Batch 2 T-26 ships still getting the hand me down artisan radars , TAS sonar kits plus CAMM front end boxes from the T-23's and if so is this part of the 4.2 billion or to be added
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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: 01 Dec 2022, 14:03 Are the Batch 2 T-26 ships still getting the hand me down artisan radars , TAS sonar kits plus CAMM front end boxes from the T-23's and if so is this part of the 4.2 billion or to be added
I see no change in announcement yet, so that "TAS sonar kits plus CAMM front end boxes" will come from T23's. The system unit cost will not be included in the "4.2 billion" to my understanding, but "taking it off, refirbish, and integration cost" will be. Although guess. I guess this is the same for T31's CAMM? Not sure.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

So can we now agree that type 26 program cost to date is 9 billion and on that bases we can remove 2 billion for design and initial costs leaving 7 billion meaning type 26 build cost is about 875 million per ship but it could go up if the 5 sets of GFE including 5 x Artisan Radar , 5 x Hull and towed sonars & 5 x CAMM front end boxes are not included and need adding to the cost

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: 01 Dec 2022, 14:24 So can we now agree that type 26 program cost to date is 9 billion and on that bases we can remove 2 billion for design and initial costs leaving 7 billion meaning type 26 build cost is about 875 million per ship but it could go up if the 5 sets of GFE including 5 x Artisan Radar , 5 x Hull and towed sonars & 5 x CAMM front end boxes are not included and need adding to the cost
No big objection, although I think we do NOT need to agree on the detailed number itself.

For example, Artisan Radar, Hull and towed sonars, CAMM front end boxes itself cost to some extent, but its integration into system costs a lot. This is clear because we all know adding the equipment cost (say, Mk.41 VLS, guns, and even AEGIS system itself) will not explain the build cost of Arley Burks DDGs. And, all these "breakdown" in cost is not known.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

RichardIC wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 19:00
Ron5 wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 18:37
RichardIC wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 18:37
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.
Firstly, that Syrian story came directly from Putin. It had, and has, absolutely zero base in fact.

Secondly, I was trying to have folks think on how TLAMS have been used in the past. Not from which platforms they were fired.

I think I am correct in saying they were 100% used in small numbers in support of coalition activities involving the Americans and that America supplied 100% of the targeting information. As such they're use was primarily political in that they showed the world the the US was not acting alone.

How that translates to a British patrol frigate carrying a slack handful (i.e. militarily insignificant) in the middle of the Pacific or Indian Oceans, is way beyond me.
Glad you’re kept updated on exactly where our subs are so you can share with us.
Glad you are willing to believe Vlad. His story has been dubunked many times previously. Story doesn't even make sense.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 19:01 You even answer your own questions within a single post.

“I am correct in saying they were 100% used in small numbers in support of coalition activities involving the Americans and that America supplied 100% of the targeting information. As such they're use was primarily political in that they showed the world the the US was not acting alone.”

Which

“translates to a British patrol frigate carrying a slack handful in the middle of the Pacific or Indian Oceans. As we are militarily insignificant in this region of the world.”
Your logic escapes me. As it will the RN. There is zero chance they will add TLAMs to the T31s. Zero.

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: 01 Dec 2022, 10:23
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 22:13
If "design and initial costs" equates to 2 unit cost, then 8.1Bn divided by 2 + 8 gives you £810M.

That's it for me...
Donald-san

Pre maingate (ie pre2015) : 140 m
Demonstration Phase (ie design) : 850 m
Build batch 1 : 3.9 billion
Build Batch 2 : 4.2 billion

Program cost to date = 9090 = 1136/ ship
Build cost = 8100 = 1012 per ship
Of course the build cost is on a downward trajectory

The Long lead items thing is a red herring, that's about the timing of the cashflow.
The discussion was: how much would a 9th T26 cost?

@Tempest says it will be greater than one billion yet clearly states the build cost of ship 8 will be around 840 million (the value of the batch 2 contract divided by 5).

I can't make his math add up. Fixed costs are fixed costs and would not be repeated for a 9th ship. Another ship facility would not be built, another ship would not be designed, so why add them in? Money spent is money spent and can't be re-spent.

I give up (again). I've read nothing here to contradict @Donald-san's proposition that 3 T26s could be acquired for the cost of the entire 5 ship T32 class. I think that's a very reasonable statement to make.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 15:08
SD67 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 10:23
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 22:13
If "design and initial costs" equates to 2 unit cost, then 8.1Bn divided by 2 + 8 gives you £810M.

That's it for me...
Donald-san

Pre maingate (ie pre2015) : 140 m
Demonstration Phase (ie design) : 850 m
Build batch 1 : 3.9 billion
Build Batch 2 : 4.2 billion

Program cost to date = 9090 = 1136/ ship
Build cost = 8100 = 1012 per ship
Of course the build cost is on a downward trajectory

The Long lead items thing is a red herring, that's about the timing of the cashflow.
The discussion was: how much would a 9th T26 cost?

@Tempest says it will be greater than one billion yet clearly states the build cost of ship 8 will be around 840 million (the value of the batch 2 contract divided by 5).

I can't make his math add up. Fixed costs are fixed costs and would not be repeated for a 9th ship. Another ship facility would not be built, another ship would not be designed, so why add them in? Money spent is money spent and can't be re-spent.
At no point have I said that ship 9 would cost 1 billion what I said is ship 9 could not be built for less than 800 million and that the current cost stands at 875 not your figure above of 840 however as said there is GFE to add to 5 ships at what cost 50 million 100 million 150 million we don't know but we could see the cost of the first 8 ship hit 900 million per ship after design and start up costs are removed

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 14:58 There is zero chance they will add TLAMs to the T31s
Quite. A relatively cheap, dual-use missile like NSM is far more in keeping with the "cheap and cheerful" ideal of a patrol/ presence
frigate.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post (total 3):
wargame_insomniacdonald_of_tokyoLord Jim
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply