Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Phil Sayers]

This sort of thing gets me thinking that there would probably be a huge market for an extremely basic SAM; perhaps a development of Martlet if ship sensors are sufficient to provide terminal guidance at say ten miles range against simple drones without the missile needing its own radar.

[Jdam]

Would laser weapons (when they can be deployed) be better for that or are they too short a range?

[serge750]

Would be an interesting combat test if they got uss ponce out there with its laser.......being america im sure they must have more systems floating around ????

[Repulse]

Not sure if anyone else buys the annual World Naval Review but the 2024 edition has an interesting section on the Auguste Benebig class which is a key part of the new French overseas patrol capabilities. Six vessels for £200mn, each with a stern ramp capable of operating a USV, or 2 8m insertion craft, and a UAV hangar capable of operating drones up to the size of the Schiebel Camcopter S-100. Good value for money.

[new guy]

Not sure if anyone else buys the annual World Naval Review but the 2024 edition has an interesting section on the Auguste Benebig class which is a key part of the new French overseas patrol capabilities. Six vessels for £200mn, each with a stern ramp capable of operating a USV, or 2 8m insertion craft, and a UAV hangar capable of operating drones up to the size of the Schiebel Camcopter S-100. Good value for money.

Not to mention the hanger, flight deck, 360 bridge, 40mm equipped, NS50 equipped, sonar equipped OPV's the french navy recently bought for ~£100m per unit..

River batch 3 esque...

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ench-navy/

[SW1]

Not sure if anyone else buys the annual World Naval Review but the 2024 edition has an interesting section on the Auguste Benebig class which is a key part of the new French overseas patrol capabilities. Six vessels for £200mn, each with a stern ramp capable of operating a USV, or 2 8m insertion craft, and a UAV hangar capable of operating drones up to the size of the Schiebel Camcopter S-100. Good value for money.

Not to mention the hanger, flight deck, 360 bridge, 40mm equipped, NS50 equipped, sonar equipped OPV's the french navy recently bought for ~£100m per unit..

River batch 3 esque...

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ench-navy/

They haven’t bought it for 100m per unit that is simply the latest contract value for the vessel there has been 2 precious contracts for this vessel in 2021 and 2020.

[Jensy]

Well, it seems someone liked the BMT Venator design.

[new guy]

Not sure if anyone else buys the annual World Naval Review but the 2024 edition has an interesting section on the Auguste Benebig class which is a key part of the new French overseas patrol capabilities. Six vessels for £200mn, each with a stern ramp capable of operating a USV, or 2 8m insertion craft, and a UAV hangar capable of operating drones up to the size of the Schiebel Camcopter S-100. Good value for money.

Not to mention the hanger, flight deck, 360 bridge, 40mm equipped, NS50 equipped, sonar equipped OPV's the french navy recently bought for ~£100m per unit..

River batch 3 esque...

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ench-navy/

Any links?
They haven’t bought it for 100m per unit that is simply the latest contract value for the vessel there has been 2 precious contracts for this vessel in 2021 and 2020.

Any links?

[new guy]

Well, it seems someone liked the BMT Venator design.

Venator (assuming you are talking about 900 was quite different to the french Patrouilleurs Hauturiers, in being that venator 90 had a lot more "mission space" or whatever you wish to call it.

[SW1]

Not sure if anyone else buys the annual World Naval Review but the 2024 edition has an interesting section on the Auguste Benebig class which is a key part of the new French overseas patrol capabilities. Six vessels for £200mn, each with a stern ramp capable of operating a USV, or 2 8m insertion craft, and a UAV hangar capable of operating drones up to the size of the Schiebel Camcopter S-100. Good value for money.

Not to mention the hanger, flight deck, 360 bridge, 40mm equipped, NS50 equipped, sonar equipped OPV's the french navy recently bought for ~£100m per unit..

River batch 3 esque...

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ench-navy/

Any links?
They haven’t bought it for 100m per unit that is simply the latest contract value for the vessel there has been 2 precious contracts for this vessel in 2021 and 2020.

Any links?

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... %20support.

https://www.defensemirror.com/news/3060 ... ol_Vessels

[new guy]

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... %20support.

https://www.defensemirror.com/news/3060 ... ol_Vessels

So two previous contracts, costing how much?

[SW1]

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... %20support.

https://www.defensemirror.com/news/3060 ... ol_Vessels

So two previous contracts, costing how much?

Not a clue but not free. Also not a clue if this is the last contract for these ships or just the latest in a series

I may add they did the same for there excellent FDI frigate they claimed it was 2.1 billion for 5 but left out the 1.4 b they spent on development.

[new guy]

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... %20support.

https://www.defensemirror.com/news/3060 ... ol_Vessels

So two previous contracts, costing how much?

Not a clue but not free. Also not a clue if this is the last contract for these ships or just the latest in a series

I may add they did the same for there excellent FDI frigate they claimed it was 2.1 billion for 5 but left out the 1.4 b they spent on development.

To be fair, the majority of development cost is fixed and doesn't change if you order 1 ship or 100. So yes you can perceive it as a cost spread across the 5 ships, or you can see it an additional one off. To a second batch or the Greek export order, it is the latter.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Not a clue but not free. Also not a clue if this is the last contract for these ships or just the latest in a series

I may add they did the same for there excellent FDI frigate they claimed it was 2.1 billion for 5 but left out the 1.4 b they spent on development.

To be fair, the majority of development cost is fixed and doesn't change if you order 1 ship or 100. So yes you can perceive it as a cost spread across the 5 ships, or you can see it an additional one off. To a second batch or the Greek export order, it is the latter.

Yes, that is the difference between "average cost" and "unit cost". T45 average cost was £1.1Bn, but its unit cost was £650M. In other words, cutting hull 7 and 8 DIDNOT save £2.2Bn, but just £1.2-1.3Bn (if including "learning curve" effect).

Similarly, adding 9th T26 will not cost £1Bn, but £800M or so (in 2022 price (ref Batch2), without inflation correction), including "learning curve" effect.

[SW1]

We seem to like these “one off development” costs a lot because we continually push to start again from scratch at the earliest opportunity rather than maximising out initial investment.

[Repulse]

We seem to like these “one off development” costs a lot because we continually push to start again from scratch at the earliest opportunity rather than maximising out initial investment.

Completely agree - the argument goes that it keeps design skills, but that cannot be at the expense of hull numbers. Better to continually evolve existing solutions. Doesn’t stop the concept ideas, but they should be directional rather than revolutionary as they are unaffordable.

[SW1]

We seem to like these “one off development” costs a lot because we continually push to start again from scratch at the earliest opportunity rather than maximising out initial investment.

Completely agree - the argument goes that it keeps design skills, but that cannot be at the expense of hull numbers. Better to continually evolve existing solutions. Doesn’t stop the concept ideas, but they should be directional rather than revolutionary as they are unaffordable.

That’s an argument that is often put fwd, but it doesn’t really do that. I’ll come at it from the aerospace side so it’s not controversial Airbus designed the a320 in the 1970s they will still be making versions of it in the 2030s, the design teams have done just fine. If you want the naval equivalent see arleigh burke. We were very close to being there with type 23

[Repulse]

If you want the naval equivalent see arleigh burke. We were very close to being there with type 23

Absolutely on the first part, the T26 though is the real opportunity for the RN, especially with costs shared with Australia and Canada.

[Tempest414]

Not a clue but not free. Also not a clue if this is the last contract for these ships or just the latest in a series

I may add they did the same for there excellent FDI frigate they claimed it was 2.1 billion for 5 but left out the 1.4 b they spent on development.

To be fair, the majority of development cost is fixed and doesn't change if you order 1 ship or 100. So yes you can perceive it as a cost spread across the 5 ships, or you can see it an additional one off. To a second batch or the Greek export order, it is the latter.

Yes, that is the difference between "average cost" and "unit cost". T45 average cost was £1.1Bn, but its unit cost was £650M. In other words, cutting hull 7 and 8 DIDNOT save £2.2Bn, but just £1.2-1.3Bn (if including "learning curve" effect).

Similarly, adding 9th T26 will not cost £1Bn, but £800M or so (in 2022 price (ref Batch2), without inflation correction), including "learning curve" effect.

But the point being over looked is that the French will pay 3.5 billion for FDI and could end up paying close to 140 million for OPV's ( still good value )

We don't know what Type 26 Batch 2 will end up costing yet we know at this time type 26 B2 is 860 million per ship with contracts still out standing

Type 31 is a bit of a odd one out we are still not clear what we are getting for the 2 billion program cost as far as we can tell the current unit costs per ship is 268 million with the program cost at 400 million per ship however there is a lot to find out

[new guy]

Something that people don't realise is that Evolution apon evolution means that the first edition can be close to completely different from most recent. Little changes happen, sub components get more efficent, Suppliers improve tolerances, all the way up to major variental changes such as CEO to NEO or 777 to 777X. Yes, you may find a few links between a A318 and a A321XLR, but even then the Individual 'Commonalities' may have undergone changes. In some way, aircraft like the X-59 which have harvested parts from the early block F-16's can be closer to early block F-16's than the most recent are. Or for a better example a platform designed to have commonality with another will share more commonality than it does with its own former variants. But that raises a different issue. That aside, this constant reform of everything keeps design teams existing. Add a few concept designs and then here we go. Even removal of the MMB on T26 in place of 64 VLS means massive redesign work. New platform design isn't as costly as some way think, As it the mundane less apparent things that are the most intensive. These things are not exclusive to a new ship design and are inclusive of any change to a ship that will naturally happen through its product lifespan.


The real question is: Is T26 suitable for the need? Does it fit the KUR's? (Key user requirements) This is what will decide what T83D will be and it's answer will be a complex formula of Capability, cost, suitibility, e.c.t.
The whole concept of FADS is to be a distributed system, with less focus on the new platform, T83. If you really want a cheap AAW escort then I suspect it be more likely that AH140 would be selected as a platform over T26, especially if it comes to a need for more missile distribution and more platforms. The T26 is a very expensive platform.
But, If you would ask me what is on my T83D betting card I would say It would be the scrapping of T32 in favor / in promise of 12 T83,
custom platforms virtually comparable to T45 in terms of weapons load but with lots of potential/Growth room/ FFBNW for more equipment.

[Repulse]

If FADS requirement is to provide AAW protection for the carrier groups then you do not need 12 ships, 6 is sufficient, and yes a re-roled T31 Iver Huitfeldt-class is ok.

Last thing the RN needs is a brand new design just for the sake of it, or settling for a tier two design for the backbone of the navy. We should be putting our efforts in getting the T26 as cheap as possible and evolving its use. It’s already started with both the building of a frigate factory at Govan, and also the evolution in designs for the RAN and RCN. Just keep going, starting with committing to building a third batch (scrapping the T83 and T32 and converting the T31 into AAW escorts).

[SW1]

Design integration is the more important skill to retain. Design evolution supports this, It also means you can integrate new technologies as you go and as factory built not bodging inservice platforms.

You can see the benefits off evolving from new build in both the price and speed with which type 31 and type 26 went from request for information to build.

As for KUR they can and have been in the past manipulated to suit a desired outcome rather than need.

[tomuk]

We seem to like these “one off development” costs a lot because we continually push to start again from scratch at the earliest opportunity rather than maximising out initial investment.

Completely agree - the argument goes that it keeps design skills, but that cannot be at the expense of hull numbers. Better to continually evolve existing solutions. Doesn’t stop the concept ideas, but they should be directional rather than revolutionary as they are unaffordable.

That’s an argument that is often put fwd, but it doesn’t really do that. I’ll come at it from the aerospace side so it’s not controversial Airbus designed the a320 in the 1970s they will still be making versions of it in the 2030s, the design teams have done just fine. If you want the naval equivalent see arleigh burke. We were very close to being there with type 23

Not really a good comparison Airbus have multiple customers buying large numbers of wide range of aeroplanes not really comparable to the RN almost single sourcing their equipment.

[new guy]

As for KUR they can and have been in the past manipulated to suit a desired outcome rather than need.

Would XV Patrick Blackett be a good example?

[SW1]

We seem to like these “one off development” costs a lot because we continually push to start again from scratch at the earliest opportunity rather than maximising out initial investment.

Completely agree - the argument goes that it keeps design skills, but that cannot be at the expense of hull numbers. Better to continually evolve existing solutions. Doesn’t stop the concept ideas, but they should be directional rather than revolutionary as they are unaffordable.

That’s an argument that is often put fwd, but it doesn’t really do that. I’ll come at it from the aerospace side so it’s not controversial Airbus designed the a320 in the 1970s they will still be making versions of it in the 2030s, the design teams have done just fine. If you want the naval equivalent see arleigh burke. We were very close to being there with type 23

Not really a good comparison Airbus have multiple customers buying large numbers of wide range of aeroplanes not really comparable to the RN almost single sourcing their equipment.

Airbus are only really utilising 4 aircraft designs ( they designed 3 of them and bought 1) they sell commercially now possibly heading toward just 3 with multiple variants of each due to their large customer base. Bae is someone with multiple customers as are Babcock evolve there designs offer it , if the RN wish to buy or not there choice.