Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

[new guy]

programme cost for a T26 B3 will still be £1bn,
programme cost for a improved T31 will be £400-500m

What facts are you basing this on?

what they cost.
If you know better please tell.

[new guy]

OPV's, auxiliaries, and other smaller ships don't get made out of thin air. assuming both BAE and bacock do smaller vessels and combatants, H&W for larger ships ( Rep ships, ro-ro's, carriers, amphibs, so ~25 hulls) , and barrow for subs, I see no problem.

You shouldn’t be surprised if I said I was in favour of a yard focused on building frigates (+ destroyers) and a yard building minor warships (OPVs, MHPCs, OSVs, Sloops or whatever). But what you are proposing is that the skills for building complex frigates (+ destroyers) is like a tap that can be turned on and off for long periods and be expected to work and work efficiently - that is pure fiction and has been proved as such.

Type 31 is fast becoming a good frigate if it gets the Mk-41 and NSM there is nothing wrong with its design and yes type 26's hull design is a decade latter but everything else is old news

What type 31 offers if fitted with the Mk-41 and NSM is a real war fighting frigate for about 0.4 the price of type 26 no it can't do ASW duties anywhere near as well type 26 but it could add to the ASW picture if fitted with a TAS and it can do all the other duties of a frigate

I maybe wrong but I think type 31 with Mk-41 and NSM fitted will cost around 380 million type 26 batch 2 is now nudging 860 million with costs to come

I don’t think we need to have another long debate around costs, but as always we are comparing apples with pears.

The RN can afford a fleet of purely mediocre T31 frigates that could possibly support two yards - it would be a political folly and leave the RN as a looks good on paper navy. The RN can also afford a fleet of quality tier one frigates and destroyers that supports one yard. The difference is probably as much as 30 T31s vs 15 T26/T45s, but the RN can never be a navy that can match the scale of other navies, it can only compete and defend UK interests on quality.

1. I don't think we should be dependent on 1 yard for 1 type of ship

2. I'm not saying that " you are proposing is that the skills for building complex frigates (+ destroyers) is like a tap that can be turned on and off for long periods and be expected to work and work efficiently - that is pure fiction and has been proved as such."
what I am saying is that they can be produced at the same time. Not 12.5 years of combatants then 12.5 years of lower ships, but built at the same time. For each 1 in-fitting-out combatant in the yard there is a second hull complete and a 3rd in parts. + the smaller ships at the same time keep experience / the amount of output that you think is needed per yard.

3. T31 is 1 pear for half the price of an apple

4. I don't view it as worse but more and better but less, I view it as a programme with inflated costs v one competent but not the best that we were fortunate enough to scrape up in panic.
The RN needs 30 combatants, and they could all be as cheap as the T31 but top of the line. I also think you are neglecting what the T31 has to offer, which is in a better variant it can be competent in ASuW. I also think that you believe a fallacy that Tier 1's vs Tier 2 vessels will always be expensive vs cheap, capable vs competent.
This links to my opinion that T32 should be with-held for 12 T83 not 6 T83.
12 FFBNW ships / Potential ships. By this I mean ships that have all the necessities for different missions: strong power output, quiet hull and propulsion, space for many VLS, large MMB, large flight deck, space for TLS, spas for TAS, hull fixture for Hull mounted sonar, designed for tall mast, e.c.t

[Repulse]

programme cost for a T26 B3 will still be £1bn,
programme cost for a improved T31 will be £400-500m

What facts are you basing this on?

what they cost.
If you know better please tell.

Can you please provide links?

[new guy]

programme cost for a T26 B3 will still be £1bn,
programme cost for a improved T31 will be £400-500m

What facts are you basing this on?

what they cost.
If you know better please tell.

Can you please provide links?

Indeed I can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate
3x 1.31bn + 4 for 4.2bn = 1 for 1016 million]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_31_frigate
programme cost for 5 for £2bn.

[Repulse]

I don't think we should be dependent on 1 yard for 1 type of ship

In the world of unicorns and larger budgets I agree.

what I am saying is that they can be produced at the same time. Not 12.5 years of combatants then 12.5 years of lower ships, but built at the same time. For each 1 in-fitting-out combatant in the yard there is a second hull complete and a 3rd in parts. + the smaller ships at the same time keep experience / the amount of output that you think is needed per yard.

So you want to basically double the build time for all ship building? Because that’s all you do unless you order more ships with more money - also, you think each hull with cost the same if you do this?

I don't view it as worse but more and better but less, I view it as a programme with inflated costs v one competent

You really are drinking up the anti-BAE cool-aid aren’t you? The reason why the T26 was as shit show was strongly due to politics - the government delayed and then unwilling to order in bulk (which would have meant a frigate factory for built earlier). Also, why were there inflated costs? Because the government spread it over 15+ years. It has little to do with BAE and the T26 and all to do with procurement - I think you’ll get a nasty surprise with your competent builder when the T32 gets delayed and messed around.

The RN needs 30 combatants

Why does it? And even if it did, why is it more important than other holes in the military? Plus, just to be clear the T31 in its original form under the RFP was not a combatant.

I also think that you believe a fallacy that Tier 1's vs Tier 2 vessels will always be expensive vs cheap, capable vs competent.

Fallacy? There is always an aspect of ensuring value for money, but if you want a capable ships you need to spend the money - only people who listen to snake oil sellers would believe anything else - sorry.

This links to my opinion that T32 should be with-held for 12 T83 not 6 T83.
12 FFBNW ships / Potential ships. By this I mean ships that have all the necessities for different missions: strong power output, quiet hull and propulsion, space for many VLS, large MMB, large flight deck, space for TLS, spas for TAS, hull fixture for Hull mounted sonar, designed for tall mast, e.c.t

Who knows what the T83 will be, but without a major uplift in money it will definitely not be 12 ships. Even if the platform is a cheap noisy one, the systems are what cost.

[Repulse]

programme cost for a T26 B3 will still be £1bn,
programme cost for a improved T31 will be £400-500m

What facts are you basing this on?

what they cost.
If you know better please tell.

Can you please provide links?

Indeed I can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate
3x 1.31bn + 4 for 4.2bn = 1 for 1016 million]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_31_frigate
programme cost for 5 for £2bn.

5 T26 for £4.2bn I think you mean (with deliveries well into the 2030s)

Your 5 T31 for £2bn, to be delivered by 2027, is also without the MK41 VLS.

A third batch of 5 T26s then would be £820mn per ship. If you order more than 5 it would probably be less.

By all means please reply, but I will not reply back as this debate has been had probably over 10 times on this thread previously.

[new guy]

programme cost for a T26 B3 will still be £1bn,
programme cost for a improved T31 will be £400-500m

What facts are you basing this on?

what they cost.
If you know better please tell.

Can you please provide links?

Indeed I can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate
3x 1.31bn + 4 for 4.2bn = 1 for 1016 million]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_31_frigate
programme cost for 5 for £2bn.

5 T26 for £4.2bn I think you mean (with deliveries well into the 2030s)

Your 5 T31 for £2bn, to be delivered by 2027, is also without the MK41 VLS.

A third batch of 5 T26s then would be £820mn per ship. If you order more than 5 it would probably be less.

By all means please reply, but I will not reply back as this debate has been had probably over 10 times on this thread previously.

Invite excepted,
sorry yes 5 not 4,
It is not public knowledge how the T31 programme budget is divided, how much spare budget there is inside of that, except £1340 for babcock and GFE, + £50m, + £70m in land system centre. There may be space inside of that for MK41.
Conversely, those T26 numbers don't count large swaths of the programme budget, just contract costs, doesn't include stuff the MoD contracted separately, And uses a lot of refurbished parts from T23. So I maintain that an upgraded T31 is still 50% the cost of any T26.

[new guy]

In

1) I respect your opinion on keeping 2 yards for escorts and OPV's / small hulls is worse than 1 yard for Combatants and 1 for small hulls.
I do agree for the UK this is a bit out of reach.
I think I argued for this because I thought your opinion came along with a we-can't-keep-babcock-open-at-all stance, which you have now clarified not to be your opinion
I respect this one, no need to argue about it, I acknowledge my plans problems, but I do argue it is still possible, depending on the governments position for yard redundancy.

So you want to basically double the build time for all ship building? Because that’s all you do unless you order more ships with more money - also, you think each hull with cost the same if you do this?

2) Nope. You have misread what I said. It is still 1 hull a year, a reasonable timetable, But instead of what you thing I meant of combatants for 12.5 years and small hulls for 12.5, alternating between yards, I mean alternating between types for each year. I made the point that workers will not be ship un-familiarised by the middle year because there will be another 1 in another stage of development: e.g see how HMS Venturer had her steel cut nearly 2 years ago. So while 1 year the yard may finish out 1 small hull out 1 year and 1 combatant the other, there will still be another 1 one in some stage of structure.

You really are drinking up the anti-BAE cool-aid aren’t you?

3) No when did I ever say that? All I said was "I view it as a programme with inflated costs v one competent one" ... because, as you said, "The reason why the T26 was as shit show was strongly due to politics" Calm down, just because we are also arguing about T26 vs T31 cost doesn't mean I have an Innate hatred for BAE.

The RN needs 30 combatants

Why does it? And even if it did, why is it more important than other holes in the military? Plus, just to be clear the T31 in its original form under the RFP was not a combatant.

4) The RN requirements that amount to a need for 30 hulls:
NATOSMG1&2, APTN/GIUK, CASD/TAPS, Kipon, CSG, LRGN/JEF, LRGS/LSG, and more.

5) We are talking about a subject centred around increasing escort numbers, so
a) Bit silly to bring in an attack and not as a general point and
b) I never said either that i) we should, or ii) that it is more important than 'other holes in the military'

6) As I said before in a statement that you cut halfway through:

I view it as a programme with inflated costs v one competent but not the best that we were fortunate enough to scrape up in panic.

a.k.a we where very fortunate what we ended up with.

[Tempest414]

OPV's, auxiliaries, and other smaller ships don't get made out of thin air. assuming both BAE and bacock do smaller vessels and combatants, H&W for larger ships ( Rep ships, ro-ro's, carriers, amphibs, so ~25 hulls) , and barrow for subs, I see no problem.

You shouldn’t be surprised if I said I was in favour of a yard focused on building frigates (+ destroyers) and a yard building minor warships (OPVs, MHPCs, OSVs, Sloops or whatever). But what you are proposing is that the skills for building complex frigates (+ destroyers) is like a tap that can be turned on and off for long periods and be expected to work and work efficiently - that is pure fiction and has been proved as such.

Type 31 is fast becoming a good frigate if it gets the Mk-41 and NSM there is nothing wrong with its design and yes type 26's hull design is a decade latter but everything else is old news

What type 31 offers if fitted with the Mk-41 and NSM is a real war fighting frigate for about 0.4 the price of type 26 no it can't do ASW duties anywhere near as well type 26 but it could add to the ASW picture if fitted with a TAS and it can do all the other duties of a frigate

I maybe wrong but I think type 31 with Mk-41 and NSM fitted will cost around 380 million type 26 batch 2 is now nudging 860 million with costs to come

I don’t think we need to have another long debate around costs, but as always we are comparing apples with pears.

The RN can afford a fleet of purely mediocre T31 frigates that could possibly support two yards - it would be a political folly and leave the RN as a looks good on paper navy. The RN can also afford a fleet of quality tier one frigates and destroyers that supports one yard. The difference is probably as much as 30 T31s vs 15 T26/T45s, but the RN can never be a navy that can match the scale of other navies, it can only compete and defend UK interests on quality.

I agree type 26 is the RN's world class ASW frigate and its costs reflect that and I don't really have a problem with the costs. Type 31 is the RN's low cost robust ( as long as it gets its Mk-41's ) GP frigates and again the cost reflects this for me buying 3 more type 31's would be a good thing as numbers do count and having a escort fleet of 21 will make a difference I would then like to see Babcocks move on to something like the new Danish MHPC

the last thing is we do need to accept that T-26 batch 2 is now 860 million per ship as things stand and could cost a bit more yet and this is OK when put alongside other ships in the same class but if we can get 8 type 31's fitted with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 8 x NSM , 32 Mk-41 VLS and S2170 SSTD for 360 to 380 million per ship we should be proud of our self's and the RN for pulling a rabbit out of the hat

[donald_of_tokyo]

...
2) Nope. You have misread what I said. It is still 1 hull a year, a reasonable timetable, But instead of what you thing I meant of combatants for 12.5 years and small hulls for 12.5, alternating between yards, I mean alternating between types for each year. I made the point that workers will not be ship un-familiarised by the middle year because there will be another 1 in another stage of development: e.g see how HMS Venturer had her steel cut nearly 2 years ago. So while 1 year the yard may finish out 1 small hull out 1 year and 1 combatant the other, there will still be another 1 one in some stage of structure.

Sorry to interrupt.

If you are proposing to repeat "1 escort + 1 minor" rotation in two yards, what is the aim for?

1: If two yards has promised order, there is no competition. Other than competition, what is the aim of supporting two yards for escort build?

2: And, if you look around the world, no one is doing "rotation building". They have escort builder and minor warship builder, independently. Why? Simply because it is more efficient = requires less cost. Skill knowledge will pile-up, and efficiency of build will be maximized. Splitting will just make it worse.

So, for me (1) there is no merit to support two escort yards, if rotation build is needed, and (2) single yard is the world trend.

Japan is supporting 2 escort yards (it was 3 until recently) and putting some competition (not full competition, but some sort of). But that is because Japan has nearly 50 escorts. (on the other hand, we do not have any SSBN or SSN).

Of course, single escort yards lacks competition, and thus cost control will be more important. But, when they say "because of lack of competition" for higher cost, it is actually simply because RN/MOD is so reluctant (and incapable) to control the program cost of escort building. Look around the world. All European navy handles a single yard and they do control the build cost.

UK/MOD/RN person is so-much low level that they cannot do what all the other European navy can do? I guess not. I think they want some "excuse" for not taking their responsibility. Control the cost.

[Tempest414]

...
2) Nope. You have misread what I said. It is still 1 hull a year, a reasonable timetable, But instead of what you thing I meant of combatants for 12.5 years and small hulls for 12.5, alternating between yards, I mean alternating between types for each year. I made the point that workers will not be ship un-familiarised by the middle year because there will be another 1 in another stage of development: e.g see how HMS Venturer had her steel cut nearly 2 years ago. So while 1 year the yard may finish out 1 small hull out 1 year and 1 combatant the other, there will still be another 1 one in some stage of structure.

Sorry to interrupt.

If you are proposing to repeat "1 escort + 1 minor" rotation in two yards, what is the aim for?

1: If two yards has promised order, there is no competition. Other than competition, what is the aim of supporting two yards for escort build?

2: And, if you look around the world, no one is doing "rotation building". They have escort builder and minor warship builder, independently. Why? Simply because it is more efficient = requires less cost. Skill knowledge will pile-up, and efficiency of build will be maximized. Splitting will just make it worse.

So, for me (1) there is no merit to support two escort yards, if rotation build is needed, and (2) single yard is the world trend.

Japan is supporting 2 escort yards (it was 3 until recently) and putting some competition (not full competition, but some sort of). But that is because Japan has nearly 50 escorts. (on the other hand, we do not have any SSBN or SSN).

Of course, single escort yards lacks competition, and thus cost control will be more important. But, when they say "because of lack of competition" for higher cost, it is actually simply because RN/MOD is so reluctant (and incapable) to control the program cost of escort building. Look around the world. All European navy handles a single yard and they do control the build cost.

UK/MOD/RN person is so-much low level that they cannot do what all the other European navy can do? I guess not. I think they want some "excuse" for not taking their responsibility. Control the cost.

There is a lot to be said for this first we need to remember that due to the MOD messing about and starting type 26 too late we needed a second builder to get ships in the water for me if Babcocks after building 8 type 31's stepped down from building escorts and got on building 15 MHPC's to replace the OPV's , LSV's and MRoSS and then 5 more GP escorts on a 20 year rotation this would be good as said it will good to watch this program

[Repulse]

if Babcocks after building 8 type 31's stepped down from building escorts

It’s a valid point, but given the highly likely eventuality that HMG/MoD differ and delay on the T83 order, and the need to make each yard as efficient as possible, I do feel we need to stop at 5 T31s and put all our efforts into the BAE yard.

3 more T31s is another T26, and possibly 3 OPVs for Babcock, which are IMO in more need than more GP frigates.

[wargame_insomniac]

… if the T32 could stretch to 3 such Damen Son-of-Holland class patrol vessels (which should be similar to the so-called high-capacity OPVs such as Vard 7 313 that have been discussed here previously), plus one additional T26 plus one additional T31, then I would be happy. Assuming the T32 Budget can stretch that far.

I would be happy also, but we are still far from the T32 becoming a budgeted reality - even then people still have their heads in the sand of the train crash that’s coming by pretending we can afford to feed two yards.

Also, I seriously do not understand those arguing for more T31s, it’s a design that is not needed and even if a T26 mission bay was added it’s still going to be a dated and compromised design.

Given a choice I would be be looking at 3 OPV replacement and another T26 - but if the government is going to continue the farce that the budget extends to two “frigate” yards then following the Dutch on a Holland replacement and calling it a “frigate” is probably the next best option.

Agree on uncertainty of any funds Budgeted for T32. Hence my comment "But we do not yet know what the T32 and/or MRSS Budgets are going to be".

Disagree with you on the need for no more T31s. I am not sure we can afford either the upfront cost or crew requirements for having 24 escorts, so I disagree with those arguing for another 5*T31 batch 2s.

I personally feel that the ideal number of escorts is probably 21, 22 at the max. There is no science to that figure. Given that both T26 and T31 have smaller crew requirements than T23, then with modest additional budgets for crew retention and recruitment, I believe we should be able to sueeze another two escorts in, whereas I feel that hoping for 5 more scorts are overly optimistic. But I recognise that is a subjective opinion.

I have argued beforhand to add both one more T26 AND one more T31 - for two reasons:

1) We have a lot of uncertainty on what is coming next including T32 and T83 and MRSS etc. By adding one more unit at the end of both T26 and T31 production runs will allow both Govan and Rosyth to benefit fom their investments in covered shipyards, allow them to keep their trained staff active and employed, and hopefully to benefit from any economies of repitition.

2) Allow greater measure of resiliency to ensure that necessary number of ships available for active service.

Where I particularly disagree with you is that I feel that RN can legitimately use 3 T31s with relativly minor upgrades as pure patrol frigates, working with our allies to keep the global Sea Lanes of Control open for maritime trade, upon which the UK's depends for both imports and exports. I also think that RN could validly use 3 upgraded T31s (with 8+ NSM Containers, additional VLS - either CAMM or Mk41, and sonar) with one for FRE and one apiece for LRG(N) and LRG(S). I am ok that you have a different opinion on this.

Disagree with you that any Damen redesign of their Holland Class OPV should be called Frigates. That is dangerous IMO. They are n't intended to be frontline warships and they will be built to commercial standards. They are likely to have lower armanent than even the base level T31. Any such "Son of Holland" ships are more intended as global Patrol Vessels or cheap low cost amphibs, aimed at delivering smaller detachments of RM's under Future Commando Force to lower risk, lower-intensity conflicts, and with tertiary function of HADR. So more for the Amphs thread than Escorts.

[wargame_insomniac]

OPV's, auxiliaries, and other smaller ships don't get made out of thin air. assuming both BAE and bacock do smaller vessels and combatants, H&W for larger ships ( Rep ships, ro-ro's, carriers, amphibs, so ~25 hulls) , and barrow for subs, I see no problem.

You shouldn’t be surprised if I said I was in favour of a yard focused on building frigates (+ destroyers) and a yard building minor warships (OPVs, MHPCs, OSVs, Sloops or whatever). But what you are proposing is that the skills for building complex frigates (+ destroyers) is like a tap that can be turned on and off for long periods and be expected to work and work efficiently - that is pure fiction and has been proved as such.

Type 31 is fast becoming a good frigate if it gets the Mk-41 and NSM there is nothing wrong with its design and yes type 26's hull design is a decade latter but everything else is old news

What type 31 offers if fitted with the Mk-41 and NSM is a real war fighting frigate for about 0.4 the price of type 26 no it can't do ASW duties anywhere near as well type 26 but it could add to the ASW picture if fitted with a TAS and it can do all the other duties of a frigate

I maybe wrong but I think type 31 with Mk-41 and NSM fitted will cost around 380 million type 26 batch 2 is now nudging 860 million with costs to come

I don’t think we need to have another long debate around costs, but as always we are comparing apples with pears.

The RN can afford a fleet of purely mediocre T31 frigates that could possibly support two yards - it would be a political folly and leave the RN as a looks good on paper navy. The RN can also afford a fleet of quality tier one frigates and destroyers that supports one yard. The difference is probably as much as 30 T31s vs 15 T26/T45s, but the RN can never be a navy that can match the scale of other navies, it can only compete and defend UK interests on quality.

But the RN does not appear to want either of such extremes, whether you look at what ships the RN has operated historically and what ships they currently have ordered. That is what the extreme viewpoints on BOTH sides of the T26 versus T31 seem to miss.

The RN clearly wants a BLEND of escorts. They do need some expensive Tier One warfighting escorts, currently the 6*T45 AAW Destroyers and 8*T23 ASW Frigates, and eventually 6 (hopefully)*T83 AAW Destroyers and 8*T26 ASW Frigates. But in both cases mixed with the blend of some cheaper Tier Two patrol escorts, with 5*T23 GP Frigates being replaced by 5+ T31 GP Frigates plus the River Batch 2s.

It is ok of you have a different opinion to the RN so long as you realise that it is just a personal opinion, no more, no less.

So BAE Govan should be able to survive building around 14-15 Tier One warfighting escorts ar roughly one very two years, plus contributing some unit blocks for any large ships such as the carriers every 30 or so years.

Meanwhile Babcock Rosyth should also be able to survive, building 10-15 smaller Tier Two / Three escorts such as T31, T32 and River Batch2s, along with contributing unit blocks for various larger ships - not just the carriers but amphibs being built by H&W Belfast.

[SD67]

...
2) Nope. You have misread what I said. It is still 1 hull a year, a reasonable timetable, But instead of what you thing I meant of combatants for 12.5 years and small hulls for 12.5, alternating between yards, I mean alternating between types for each year. I made the point that workers will not be ship un-familiarised by the middle year because there will be another 1 in another stage of development: e.g see how HMS Venturer had her steel cut nearly 2 years ago. So while 1 year the yard may finish out 1 small hull out 1 year and 1 combatant the other, there will still be another 1 one in some stage of structure.

Sorry to interrupt.

If you are proposing to repeat "1 escort + 1 minor" rotation in two yards, what is the aim for?

1: If two yards has promised order, there is no competition. Other than competition, what is the aim of supporting two yards for escort build?

2: And, if you look around the world, no one is doing "rotation building". They have escort builder and minor warship builder, independently. Why? Simply because it is more efficient = requires less cost. Skill knowledge will pile-up, and efficiency of build will be maximized. Splitting will just make it worse.

So, for me (1) there is no merit to support two escort yards, if rotation build is needed, and (2) single yard is the world trend.

Japan is supporting 2 escort yards (it was 3 until recently) and putting some competition (not full competition, but some sort of). But that is because Japan has nearly 50 escorts. (on the other hand, we do not have any SSBN or SSN).

Of course, single escort yards lacks competition, and thus cost control will be more important. But, when they say "because of lack of competition" for higher cost, it is actually simply because RN/MOD is so reluctant (and incapable) to control the program cost of escort building. Look around the world. All European navy handles a single yard and they do control the build cost.

UK/MOD/RN person is so-much low level that they cannot do what all the other European navy can do? I guess not. I think they want some "excuse" for not taking their responsibility. Control the cost.

Rosyth is what in automotive we used to call a "flex plant". The site that does "everything else". It is not and should not be dependent on the RN. I doubt BAE have the cost base or frankly the interest to do a run of OPVs / LSVs, the Clyde is crowded enough as it is and trying to shoehorn anything else in there is not going to reduce cost IMHO.
In terms of cost control of cost there is a big difference between the UK and much of Europe - government ownership. Naval Group 62%, Navantia 100%. BAE are responsible to shareholders and the government is not one of them.
I'm pretty sure France and Italy operate more than one military shipyard, but happy to be stood corrected by the experts.

[new guy]

Alr then,
A&P / cammel laird for maintenance and fabrication.
H&W for larger vessels, (carriers, amphibs, Rep aux ships, e.c.t)
Babcock for Small vessels, auxiliaries.
BAE for combatants.

[tomuk]

...
2) Nope. You have misread what I said. It is still 1 hull a year, a reasonable timetable, But instead of what you thing I meant of combatants for 12.5 years and small hulls for 12.5, alternating between yards, I mean alternating between types for each year. I made the point that workers will not be ship un-familiarised by the middle year because there will be another 1 in another stage of development: e.g see how HMS Venturer had her steel cut nearly 2 years ago. So while 1 year the yard may finish out 1 small hull out 1 year and 1 combatant the other, there will still be another 1 one in some stage of structure.

Sorry to interrupt.

If you are proposing to repeat "1 escort + 1 minor" rotation in two yards, what is the aim for?

1: If two yards has promised order, there is no competition. Other than competition, what is the aim of supporting two yards for escort build?

2: And, if you look around the world, no one is doing "rotation building". They have escort builder and minor warship builder, independently. Why? Simply because it is more efficient = requires less cost. Skill knowledge will pile-up, and efficiency of build will be maximized. Splitting will just make it worse.

So, for me (1) there is no merit to support two escort yards, if rotation build is needed, and (2) single yard is the world trend.

Japan is supporting 2 escort yards (it was 3 until recently) and putting some competition (not full competition, but some sort of). But that is because Japan has nearly 50 escorts. (on the other hand, we do not have any SSBN or SSN).

Of course, single escort yards lacks competition, and thus cost control will be more important. But, when they say "because of lack of competition" for higher cost, it is actually simply because RN/MOD is so reluctant (and incapable) to control the program cost of escort building. Look around the world. All European navy handles a single yard and they do control the build cost.

UK/MOD/RN person is so-much low level that they cannot do what all the other European navy can do? I guess not. I think they want some "excuse" for not taking their responsibility. Control the cost.

Donald
Do fincantieri not have two escort yards at Muggiano and Riva Trigoso? What about the yards in Germany.

[Tempest414]

if Babcocks after building 8 type 31's stepped down from building escorts

It’s a valid point, but given the highly likely eventuality that HMG/MoD differ and delay on the T83 order, and the need to make each yard as efficient as possible, I do feel we need to stop at 5 T31s and put all our efforts into the BAE yard.

3 more T31s is another T26, and possibly 3 OPVs for Babcock, which are IMO in more need than more GP frigates.

these are just our views but for me the 3 GP type 31's are needed one more type 26 can't be in 3 places at once and as we know right now type 31 costs 268 million per ship without the Mk-41's I and this is just my thinking I think T-31 with Mk-41 will be about 340 million

As for the BAE yard the MOD need to get on with it if they allow type 83 to be late and a gap to form then they have them self to blame I think one extra type 26 will be ordered if and when the gap comes

[tomuk]

as we know right now type 31 costs 268 million per ship without the Mk-41's I and this is just my thinking I think T-31 with Mk-41 will be about 340 million

A 27% increase in price to fit a few Mk41 VLS?

[donald_of_tokyo]

as we know right now type 31 costs 268 million per ship without the Mk-41's I and this is just my thinking I think T-31 with Mk-41 will be about 340 million

A 27% increase in price to fit a few Mk41 VLS?

And to improve CMS to install its software, additional front-end electronics boxes needed to handle each types of missiles, and all the integration tests and verification tests needed. Of course, the last part is the most costy part. Hardware is not the cost driver (although non negligible.) Certification does.

If we want CAMM, we also need to pay for ExLS and its introduction cost (not only the hardware). This is "in addition to" the mushroom costs (which is mostly, canister, LMS-box, software, wiring, and integration, all needed in case of ExLS+Mk41 option also).

Not sure about the actual costs. But, if you see the USN Arleigh Burk class cost, and compare it with the VLS hardware cost, the latter is almost negligible. So, integration costs huge.

[tomuk]

as we know right now type 31 costs 268 million per ship without the Mk-41's I and this is just my thinking I think T-31 with Mk-41 will be about 340 million

A 27% increase in price to fit a few Mk41 VLS?

And to improve CMS to install its software, additional front-end electronics boxes needed to handle each types of missiles, and all the integration tests and verification tests needed. Of course, the last part is the most costy part. Hardware is not the cost driver (although non negligible.) Certification does.

If we want CAMM, we also need to pay for ExLS and its introduction cost (not only the hardware). This is "in addition to" the mushroom costs (which is mostly, canister, LMS-box, software, wiring, and integration, all needed in case of ExLS+Mk41 option also).

Not sure about the actual costs. But, if you see the USN Arleigh Burk class cost, and compare it with the VLS hardware cost, the latter is almost negligible. So, integration costs huge.

A recent FMS notice put the costs at $110m for 8x8 Launchers including various support for the Netherlands Navy.

The Government of the Netherlands has requested a possible purchase of eight (8) eight-cell MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) Baseline (B/L) VII Strike Length Launcher Modules (either system or standalone). Also included are spare parts; handling equipment; transportation test and support equipment; software; engineering/technical assistance; personnel training and training equipment; documentation, publications and technical data; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated program cost is $110 million.

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... system-vls

[donald_of_tokyo]

A recent FMS notice put the costs at $110m for 8x8 Launchers including various support for the Netherlands Navy.

The Government of the Netherlands has requested a possible purchase of eight (8) eight-cell MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) Baseline (B/L) VII Strike Length Launcher Modules (either system or standalone). Also included are spare parts; handling equipment; transportation test and support equipment; software; engineering/technical assistance; personnel training and training equipment; documentation, publications and technical data; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated program cost is $110 million.

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... system-vls

Thanks, great find. So, just buying and installing Mk.41 (64-cell equivalent) needs this cost.

In addition, all the other costs, as I mentioned, will be needed.

[Tempest414]

So as the UK will have all the tec logistics and training support already we can knock off some money from that so for 20 sets of 8 cell units we would be looking at 250 million dollars or 200 million pounds which works out to £40 million per ship so my guess of 340 million per ship with 32 Mk-41's fitted is about right

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald
Do fincantieri not have two escort yards at Muggiano and Riva Trigoso? What about the yards in Germany.

Good point. I understand they ALSO to merchant vessels build there?

[SD67]

Alr then,
A&P / cammel laird for maintenance and fabrication.
H&W for larger vessels, (carriers, amphibs, Rep aux ships, e.c.t)
Babcock for Small vessels, auxiliaries.
BAE for combatants.

Sounds good to me