Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

[Ron5]

The original Type 26 target was two thirds of the Type 45 unit cost.

In other words, it was not set based on any kind of analysis on what was needed or desired or whatever. Just on the cost of the last class of warship.

So to say the budget i.e. 13 times the target unit cost, was exceeded, means nothing. Such is the Treasury & MoD's effed up way of doing business.

[Ron5]

It wasn't that optimistic until the SNP decided to open their traitorous, self-defeating mouths and give BAE fuel to raise prices due to the threat of consequences from not buying on the Clyde.

If that factor hadn't existed, which caught everyone by surprise with how suddenly it roared up, then there's every chance the Type 26 would already be floating, and for a lot cheaper.

Your rant clearly shows you have absolutely no idea how the pricing of the Type 26 works.

[Jake1992]

Could it be that with reports such as this coming out and MPs now openly saying that they intend if need be to force HMG to increase defence spending, that we might finally get the increase so desperately needed ?

One can only hope that this is acted apon and not just ignored.

I really like the idea of it being put in to law that the defence spending should be 3% of GDP minimum. If it can be done for aid why not defence

[Opinion3]

"...... until it blew the budget"

but maybe the point is the budget is not right. The army hasn't really had any new kit for a long long time if we are honourable enough to exclude the sandpit toys they needed as UOR and taken mainstream. The reduction in numbers sounds incredible; indeed the true fighting force is probably what people really need to understand.

The Navy and Airforce have both suffered. Sentinel should be the full 7 and being upgraded. How about the cameras and upgrade for over water monitoring. It is the same for the Navy, we talk about the affordability, but in reality in the world of "entitlement spending" e.g. free bus passes, railcards, TV licences etc. etc. the money leaks away in unaffordable ways. It is harsh to be putting our kids in debt for generations to come. We still should be affording Defence because this spending is something, we as individuals, should not and cannot cover as individuals unlike my examples of "entitlement spending".

Sweeping, broad brush comments I know but the US already defends and pays for us. Thanks Uncle Sam, I am truly grateful, but I feel we shouldn't be charity.

[R686]

I really like the idea of it being put in to law that the defence spending should be 3% of GDP minimum. If it can be done for aid why not defence

sounds good in theory, but how do you define the act of what should come out of that 3%

[Jake1992]

I really like the idea of it being put in to law that the defence spending should be 3% of GDP minimum. If it can be done for aid why not defence

sounds good in theory, but how do you define the act of what should come out of that 3%

Ideally I'd like it to be the same definition of what defence spending was before 2010 ( before intelligence pension so on ) but even with with how it is defined today it'd be 50% on the current £36bn odd

[NickC]

In relation to minimising cost of T31e by deleting helicopter/hanger/flight deck to enable an operationally effective ASW light frigate to operate as part group with a Type 23/26 and/or carrier.

The October US CRS report on the LCS and its mission modules, it quotes a procurement cost (excludes RDT&E) of $356.0 million for 16 ASW mission packages, an average of about $22.3/ ~ £17 million each.

The LCS ASW escort mission module (EMM), includes the new Raytheon AN/SQS-62 Variable Depth Sonar (VDS), that won out in competition Thales CAPTAS 4 and L-3 for a light weight system required for the limited payload LCS, and the LM TB-37 Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA). The LCS ships have no hull mounted sonars. 

You would need to price in a HMS and firepower eg HWT, anti-sub mortars, deck launched MILAS/ASROC which is noticeably absent from the Type 26 which only has the helicopter launched LWT, helicopter has to operational and it's said modern submarines can dive deeper than a LWT.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks, NickC-san. Great info!

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf

See p.8...
Procurement Costs Sea Frames
The Navy’s proposed FY2018 budget, as amended on May 24, 2017, is requesting the procurement of two LCSs at a combined cost of $1,177.1 million, or an average of about $588.6 million each. Certain LCS sea frames that were procured in prior years were subject to an LCS program unit procurement cost cap.[13[

Mission Packages
A March 2017 GAO report states that the total estimated acquisition cost of 64 LCS mission packages is $7,100.7 million (i.e., about $7.1 billion) in constant FY2017 dollars (an average of about $110.9 million per package), including $2,611.6 million (i.e., about $2.6 billion) in research and development costs and $4,456.3 million (i.e., about $4.5 billion) in procurement costs (an average of about $69.6 each in procurement cost).[14]

An April 2017 Navy report to Congress states that the total estimated development cost of the LCS mission packages is $2,796.0 million, including $790.9 million for the SUW mission package, $470.9 million for the ASW mission package, $387.8 million for the MCM mission package, and $1,146.4 million for equipment that is common to all the packages.[15]

The April 2017 Navy report to Congress states that the total estimated procurement cost of the 64 originally planned LCS mission packages is $4,552.7 million (an average of about $71.1 million each), including $777.2 million for 24 SUW mission packages (an average of about $32.4 million each), $356.0 million for 16 ASW mission packages (an average of about $22.3 million each), $2,430.6 million for 24 MCM mission packages (an average of $101.3 million each), and $988.9 million for common equipment for all 64 packages (an average of about $15.5 million each).16 The report states that the unit costs of the key equipment items in the SUW, ASW, and MIW mission packages are about $22.7 million, $18.5 million, and $68.4 million, respectively.[17] As mentioned earlier, the Navy is reviewing the total quantity of LCS mission packages to be procured due to ship quantity changes, changes in employment approach, and finalization of the LCS-to-Frigate bridge strategy, and anticipates formalizing the revised mission package procurement quantities in time for the submission of the Navy’s proposed FY2019 budget.

-----------------
In short, as I read, ASW LCS is made of
- the ship itself, with $588.6 million each
- ASW mission package with $22.3 million each
- common equipment (for all packages) $15.5 million each
- supported by $2.6 billion in research and development costs for all 3 types of packages.

So the ASW mission package is $37.8M each, NOT INCLUDING the CMS and network, associated with the ship.

A good ASW part of CMS (CPU and software) is needed to analyze the data by their own, and a good network is needed for multi-static ASW operation. I do not know it's price, but not surprised if it amounts to $100M or more.

# Of course, we can "level-down" each items, ASW package, CMS, and network....

# By the way, MCM package is the most expensive. $101.3 million each + $15.5 million each = $116.8M each. I think this number is "as expected". But anyway we need to see how it works... Anyhow, I do not know in detail about the MCM kits at this moment...

[shark bait]

Those figures sound reasonable, similar to reports in the past that cost a sonar system operating on a British ship costs around £20m.

A highly valuable investment.

I will suggest rather than deleting the aviation capability to pay for the sonar, should we delete the big gun? Thats running a price tag for £45m per unit at the moment.

[NickC]

The Australians paid ~$66 million for 3 Mk 45 guns to be installed on their AWDs, £45M seems high, assuming its due to the choice of the new automated magazine for Mk 45 with the Type 26, understood the new automated magazine concept based on the Zumwalt $Bs 155 mm AGS gun.

If building an effective operational ASW frigate to work with Type 23/26 and carriers at the lowest possible cost so as build up numbers as said earlier priorities would be shock hardening, silencing, sonar and anti-submarine firepower, eg HWT's, the gun would be a very low priority, choice of gun would be the surplus (14?) Goalkeeper 30mm cannon that the RN has sitting in a warehouse.

[shark bait]

Goal keeper is out of serive in the RN, so not wise to bring that back. The 30mm DSB from the river class would be preferable. Perhaps if feeling a little adventurous the 40mm CTA could be brought in, with the added benefit of doubling up as a CIWS, which could offset the cost of a new system.

On top of that the surface to surface capability of CAMM should also be exploited.

I could certainly advocate fitting a smaller gun in return for a capable ASW capability.

[NickC]

The advantage of Goalkeeper is its a zero cost option they are sitting in the warehouse, it would cost to update it as did the Dutch Navy.

Its an order of magnitude more potent than the DS30M Mk2, they both use the same round, 30 x 173mm. Goalkeeper with its GD seven barrel Gatling GAU-8 gun, as used in the A-10 Thunderbolt, fires at 4,200 rounds per minute whilst the DS30 uses the ATK Mk 44 Bushmaster II cannon fires at 200 rounds per minute.

Goalkeeper is a serious and effective CIWS, more powerful and capable than Phalanx, whilst the DS30 use is much more limited, think its AA capability is token. That's reflected in original cost and weight of the two systems, both have a place. The new CTA 40mm would be an expensive option plus cost to develop for naval use. The rationale of my choices for ASW frigate/corvette is to drive the cost down to afford operational warships not just a glorified OPV for "presence" as the Navy has specified.

The current T31e shows a total lack of thought by the RN of what operational role as a warship it can play, just a knee jerk response to current Treasury imposed funding limit of £1,250 million and Sir John Parker report following the £3.7 billion cost for three Type 26s when originally talked of as £350 million each.

[Ron5]

The Australians paid ~$66 million for 3 Mk 45 guns to be installed on their AWDs, £45M seems high, assuming its due to the choice of the new automated magazine for Mk 45 with the Type 26, understood the new automated magazine concept based on the Zumwalt $Bs 155 mm AGS gun.

If building an effective operational ASW frigate to work with Type 23/26 and carriers at the lowest possible cost so as build up numbers as said earlier priorities would be shock hardening, silencing, sonar and anti-submarine firepower, eg HWT's, the gun would be a very low priority, choice of gun would be the surplus (14?) Goalkeeper 30mm cannon that the RN has sitting in a warehouse.

The T26 magazine has zero relationship with that on the Zumwalts. Different company, different design, different everything.

[Ron5]

The advantage of Goalkeeper is its a zero cost option they are sitting in the warehouse, it would cost to update it as did the Dutch Navy.

Its an order of magnitude more potent than the DS30M Mk2, they both use the same round, 30 x 173mm. Goalkeeper with its GD seven barrel Gatling GAU-8 gun, as used in the A-10 Thunderbolt, fires at 4,200 rounds per minute whilst the DS30 uses the ATK Mk 44 Bushmaster II cannon fires at 200 rounds per minute.

Goalkeeper is a serious and effective CIWS, more powerful and capable than Phalanx, whilst the DS30 use is much more limited, think its AA capability is token. That's reflected in original cost and weight of the two systems, both have a place. The new CTA 40mm would be an expensive option plus cost to develop for naval use. The rationale of my choices for ASW frigate/corvette is to drive the cost down to afford operational warships not just a glorified OPV for "presence" as the Navy has specified.

The current T31e shows a total lack of thought by the RN of what operational role as a warship it can play, just a knee jerk response to current Treasury imposed funding limit of £1,250 million and Sir John Parker report following the £3.7 billion cost for three Type 26s when originally talked of as £350 million each.

Once again, inaccurate. The original Treasury cost limit on the T26 was 450 million after first of class cost removed. The budget for the Type 31's has not been released but it will have to be significantly higher than just the cost of building 5. Service & support will also have to be included at a minimum. Some folks have speculated 2 billion i.e. the same cost as building 3 extra Type 26.

And why, if you are dreaming about an ASW focused Type 31, are you wanting a Goalkeeper?

And what makes you think that adding type 26 levels of shock proofing, silencing & survivability to a Type 31 can be paid for by just deleting a refurbished 5" gun?

P.S. edited because I forgot this was a fantasy thread. Real world rules do not apply. Apologies.

[RichardIC]

The advantage of Goalkeeper is its a zero cost option they are sitting in the warehouse, it would cost to update it as did the Dutch Navy.

The introduction or resource accounting provides a big disincentive to keeping unused equipment sitting in warehouses. Therefore the retired Goalkeeper systems probably aren't sitting in warehouses.

It's far more likely they've been reduced to components and recycled/scrapped if there's no buyer for the whole systems - although I'd be happy to be corrected if someone knows otherwise.

[NickC]

Ron5 "The T26 magazine has zero relationship with that on the Zumwalts. Different company, different design, different everything."

The Zumwalt 155 mm AGS and magazine manufactured by BAE Inc, who bought out United Defense back in 2005, as is the Mk45 Mod4 5" gun used in the Type 26.

Ron5 "And what makes you think that adding type 26 levels of shock proofing, silencing & survivability to a Type 31 can be paid for by just deleting a refurbished 5" gun?"

If you had read my earlier posts you would have noted also deleated Wildcat/hanger/flight deck. Aim to build an opeationally effective ASW squadrons with Type 23/26 and carriers and a ASW T31s for minimal cost and so build up RN fleet numbers which at moment are at all time low.

[NickC]

The advantage of Goalkeeper is its a zero cost option they are sitting in the warehouse, it would cost to update it as did the Dutch Navy.

The introduction or resource accounting provides a big disincentive to keeping unused equipment sitting in warehouses. Therefore the retired Goalkeeper systems probably aren't sitting in warehouses.

It's far more likely they've been reduced to components and recycled/scrapped if there's no buyer for the whole systems - although I'd be happy to be corrected if someone knows otherwise.

The last info I read was that they were on MOD sales list.

[KyleG]

The advantage of Goalkeeper is its a zero cost option they are sitting in the warehouse

Zero cost to fit perhaps, but not zero cost to maintain and arm yet another unique weapons system. The 6m below deck requirement is quite a limitation too, compared to other CIWS at least.

[RichardIC]

The last info I read was that they were on MOD sales list

Then they'll be sold quick sharp or recycled - not kept sitting in warehouses.

It's definitely not a zero cost option. Resource accounting was introduced throughout Govt departments from the late 90s and basically means depreciation = expenditure for accounting purposes, so warehousing old kit costs a lot more than the cost of the warehouse.

I'm not an accounting expert but I know people who are and that's what they tell me (it's not a conversation I try to have more often than necessary).

Again, happy to be corrected.

[NickC]

The advantage of Goalkeeper is its a zero cost option they are sitting in the warehouse

Zero cost to fit perhaps, but not zero cost to maintain and arm yet another unique weapons system. The 6m below deck requirement is quite a limitation too, compared to other CIWS at least.

The RN RFI for the T31 is for 1 x Medium Calibre Gun ≥ 57mm and interoperable munitions with Allies, so the RN may end up with the yet another unique weapons system, 57 or 76mm if winning bidder includes them to meet price cap. The RN may have no option other than accept this, if competition purely on price, as with CMS which may be new to Navy to them, fraught with difficulties.

As said my aim to build minimal cost dedicated ASW ship with no helicopter, one option is Goalkeeper, if still available at zero cost is a very capable CIWS, more so than Phalanx. Would use Goalkeeper instead of medium calibre gun to lower cost so to spend budget sonar, HWT etc. etc.

[RichardIC]

Goalkeeper, if still available at zero cost

... which it isn't

[dmereifield]

Goalkeeper, if still available at zero cost

... which it isn't

To clarify, are you saying it isn't available or isn't available at zero cost (in terms of aquisition)? Trying to elucidate if you (or others) have further info on the prior rumours that RN/MoD owned equipment would not be gifted, but would have to be costed into the £250 price cap....

[Ron5]

Ron5 "The T26 magazine has zero relationship with that on the Zumwalts. Different company, different design, different everything."

The Zumwalt 155 mm AGS and magazine manufactured by BAE Inc, who bought out United Defense back in 2005, as is the Mk45 Mod4 5" gun used in the Type 26.

Ron5 "And what makes you think that adding type 26 levels of shock proofing, silencing & survivability to a Type 31 can be paid for by just deleting a refurbished 5" gun?"

If you had read my earlier posts you would have noted also deleated Wildcat/hanger/flight deck. Aim to build an opeationally effective ASW squadrons with Type 23/26 and carriers and a ASW T31s for minimal cost and so build up RN fleet numbers which at moment are at all time low.

1. So who designed and built the Type 26 automated magazine? Do you actually know or are you just guessing??

2. Removing the helicopter from a dedicated ASW ship seems a tad obtuse.

[Ron5]

Goalkeeper, if still available at zero cost

... which it isn't

To clarify, are you saying it isn't available or isn't available at zero cost (in terms of aquisition)? Trying to elucidate if you (or others) have further info on the prior rumours that RN/MoD owned equipment would not be gifted, but would have to be costed into the £250 price cap....

Not a rumour, was stated.

[RichardIC]

To clarify, are you saying it isn't available or isn't available at zero cost (in terms of aquisition)? Trying to elucidate if you (or others) have further info on the prior rumours that RN/MoD owned equipment would not be gifted, but would have to be costed into the £250 price cap....

Honestly not the right person to answer that. I'm not an expert on the difference between Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) - which applies now, and cash accounting, which used to be how things were done.

But my basic understanding is that with RAB you keep paying for things for as long as you have them on the books, and with cash accounting you paid for them at the point of acquisition and that was that. So it probably wouldn't be possible to transfer over equipment at zero cost.

Like most things, I'm sure there is a body of solid common sense behind the change to RAB (and I can think of ways cash accounting was right royally abused) although it does have some unintended consequences that can seem, at least on the surface, infuriatingly daft.