Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Not sure what would be trialed. Looks like they took an ASW helo's equipment and stuck it in a unmanned speedboat. Personally I see zero technology breakthrough here.
I doubt if the speedboats could cope with North Sea conditions let alone the Atlantic and how long exactly would they take to reach a sub contact from Mother? A Merlin flies out at 150 knots, what do these things do? 20 knots? In what sea conditions can they be launched anyway?
I agree good point.

1: ASW helo has high mobility (150 kts) but lacks endurance (4-6 hrs, one flight in a day if it is continuous, not surge, I guess). Only a half the fleet can be deployed on a ship, and they need 6-9 units to keep 24hr/7days operation. In short, it needs 12-18 units to keep one on flight.

2: Drones such as SeaGull (SeaHunter) has an endurance of 4 days (weeks), and I think a half can be deployed. In short, it needs 2-3 units to keep one on station. 5-10 times better. (But, these drones lacks mobility, say ~15 knts in transit, 10 times worse)

Clearly these two differs a lot.

I think ASW drones are good at, long endurance, sustained, shallow water operation.
- Can be regarded as a powerful (FLASH) (or even CAPTAS-1 in SeaHunter class?) sonobuoy, which can move around.
- Or a slowly moving ASW Helo, with "10 times" longer endurance and "10 times" better availability, but 10 times less dash speed.

On the other hand, how to deploy, sustain, how reliable they are, (= system reliability) all these issues need testing. Surely conclusion of RN and (for example) Swedish navy will differ. But, if it is Channel, North Sea, Irish sea, and Persian gulf, it may work?

I suspect clearing the choke points can be better done with ASW drones (SSK can even use tides to move in without noise), while hunting SSN in blue water can be much better done with ASW helo.
Caribbean wrote:
Repulse wrote:the difference between 5 B2s with some minor upgrades and the T31 IMO isn’t worth £1.25bn
I would have to disagree with you there. The B2s would need significant upgrades to be a T31 equivalent. They both have their place, but at different levels
Agree to Caribbean-san. It is just like saying, HMS Ocean can be easily upgraded to be a QECV. Or, T31 can be easily upgraded to T26 standard. Or, Hawk T2 can be easily upgraded to be Gripped NG. No they cannot.

If I told the world I'd invented a new ASW helicopter that's really, really slow, flies really, really low and can only operate in benign sea states, I think the world would think I am quite mad.

If the mother ship detects a submarine at say, 40 miles, it would take one of these speedboats the better part of three hours getting launched and chugging its way to the contact. Chances the sub is still there: zero.

Or you want to surround the QE with a half a dozen of these boats to form an inner screen? Chances they can keep station with the carrier transiting at fleet speed through the bay of Biscay - once again: zero.

Ah but the old favorite, the coastal water "choke point" near a port or vulnerable coastline. Probably already has a network of permanently placed seabed sensors that function 24xx7x365 regardless of weather.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Jake1992 »

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Not sure what would be trialed. Looks like they took an ASW helo's equipment and stuck it in a unmanned speedboat. Personally I see zero technology breakthrough here.
I doubt if the speedboats could cope with North Sea conditions let alone the Atlantic and how long exactly would they take to reach a sub contact from Mother? A Merlin flies out at 150 knots, what do these things do? 20 knots? In what sea conditions can they be launched anyway?
I agree good point.

1: ASW helo has high mobility (150 kts) but lacks endurance (4-6 hrs, one flight in a day if it is continuous, not surge, I guess). Only a half the fleet can be deployed on a ship, and they need 6-9 units to keep 24hr/7days operation. In short, it needs 12-18 units to keep one on flight.

2: Drones such as SeaGull (SeaHunter) has an endurance of 4 days (weeks), and I think a half can be deployed. In short, it needs 2-3 units to keep one on station. 5-10 times better. (But, these drones lacks mobility, say ~15 knts in transit, 10 times worse)

Clearly these two differs a lot.

I think ASW drones are good at, long endurance, sustained, shallow water operation.
- Can be regarded as a powerful (FLASH) (or even CAPTAS-1 in SeaHunter class?) sonobuoy, which can move around.
- Or a slowly moving ASW Helo, with "10 times" longer endurance and "10 times" better availability, but 10 times less dash speed.

On the other hand, how to deploy, sustain, how reliable they are, (= system reliability) all these issues need testing. Surely conclusion of RN and (for example) Swedish navy will differ. But, if it is Channel, North Sea, Irish sea, and Persian gulf, it may work?

I suspect clearing the choke points can be better done with ASW drones (SSK can even use tides to move in without noise), while hunting SSN in blue water can be much better done with ASW helo.
Caribbean wrote:
Repulse wrote:the difference between 5 B2s with some minor upgrades and the T31 IMO isn’t worth £1.25bn
I would have to disagree with you there. The B2s would need significant upgrades to be a T31 equivalent. They both have their place, but at different levels
Agree to Caribbean-san. It is just like saying, HMS Ocean can be easily upgraded to be a QECV. Or, T31 can be easily upgraded to T26 standard. Or, Hawk T2 can be easily upgraded to be Gripped NG. No they cannot.

If I told the world I'd invented a new ASW helicopter that's really, really slow, flies really, really low and can only operate in benign sea states, I think the world would think I am quite mad.

If the mother ship detects a submarine at say, 40 miles, it would take one of these speedboats the better part of three hours getting launched and chugging its way to the contact. Chances the sub is still there: zero.

Or you want to surround the QE with a half a dozen of these boats to form an inner screen? Chances they can keep station with the carrier transiting at fleet speed through the bay of Biscay - once again: zero.

Ah but the old favorite, the coastal water "choke point" near a port or vulnerable coastline. Probably already has a network of permanently placed seabed sensors that function 24xx7x365 regardless of weather.
The way I'd look at using the seagulls would be in the coastle and choke point, then one on each T26.
The way I'd see them used on the T26s would be to send them out to expand the T26 sensor area, not as away to attack the subs not unless they were very close to the detection

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:As has been said in the past the 5 new rivers have cost 635 million or 127 million each under TOBA. And as I said in the past I feel we could of got 3 112 meter Khareef heavy corvettes for that money which could of replaced 3 of the type 23 GPs it would have been good enough to undertake most tasks
Realistically is that not were we are still likely to end up? Just with 5 not 3? It looks to me that with Leander we are really just getting the Batch 3 River class or stretched Khareef's that many were calling for at the time. Taken in that context Leander will fill a role but overall it will still leave a very unbalanced fleet with 14 Tier1 escorts, 8 OPV's and 5 Patrol Frigates. A way must be found to get the escort fleet back up to above 20.
Caribbean wrote:Of course, what should have happened is that we kept the B1 Rivers, built 10 T26 and used the River B2 budget to build 3-4 frigate-like heavy OPVs for the Caribbean/ Med/ APT-N/ APT-S/ general security/ flag-waving etc. etc. The £5-600m or so that they cost could have built a very nice Holland-class equivalent.
Very true but where do we go from here? Current planning says stick with 14 escorts and rely on Allies to fill the gaps. This makes me very uncomfortable. When does a USN CSG deploy without at least 2 or 3 Burkes and 1 Tico? It's one thing adding to an escort screen, it's totally different when Allies are providing the bulk of the escorts. We must aspire to do better as a nation.

I am still hopeful Babcock will surprise us (again) and come up with a more multipurpose option but if not I now think Leander can be made to work albeit not as a credible escort, simply as a presence ship for flag waving etc.

Leander won't solve the escort shortage but it will buy time to sort out a properly funded and credible escort renewal strategy. With the T31 and T26 programmes the UK now has credible options for a £250m Patrol Frigate and £750 Tier1 world class ASW Frigate. What is missing is the £500m option (FTI) which should be the backbone of RN's escort fleet.

I have come to the conclusion that there is a very obvious and realistic £500m option that must be discounted before looking elsewhere. I will finish the graphics and post it when it's done to see what everyone thinks.

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by andrew98 »

The government needs to get its damn act together with regards to defence, it is ultimately the number one responsibility, not a cash cow to be milked for easy votes.
To even claim they can get a warship for the price of just 2 x F-35B's is in my mind ludicrous. Now if it was a warship or flight of 4 aircraft that gives a more realistic figure in my mind.
Given £500m per ship I'd like a tricked out BMT Venator 110 (or even Venator 120)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by seaspear »

With the development of these remote asw type vehicles is there the likelihood of a development of one that stays underwater for some period and can be used in areas where you would not deploy manned submarines targeting naval bases or waiting outside for vessels to leave

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:If the mother ship detects a submarine at say, 40 miles, it would take one of these speedboats the better part of three hours getting launched and chugging its way to the contact. Chances the sub is still there: zero.

Or you want to surround the QE with a half a dozen of these boats to form an inner screen? Chances they can keep station with the carrier transiting at fleet speed through the bay of Biscay - once again: zero.

Ah but the old favorite, the coastal water "choke point" near a port or vulnerable coastline. Probably already has a network of permanently placed seabed sensors that function 24xx7x365 regardless of weather.
As you said, this small ASW drones cannot be a member of CVTF. They cannot replace ASW helos, and cannot be combined with "ship-sonar-detection --> sent to confirm --> attack" routine.

It is rather a "choke point", near-port, or vulnerable coastline surveyer. In passive ASW world, permanently placed seabed sensors would have been better. But now we need someone to perform active pinging. As the location of pinger is known from hundreds of miles away, leaving it seabed is too vulnerable. A fisher boat casting a net on it, anchoring the wire to cut, can easily defeat the sensors.

On here, I think ASW drones are needed. These drones will also work as sea-denial = preventing enemy SSK to sneak into some area of the sea.
If I told the world I'd invented a new ASW helicopter that's really, really slow, flies really, really low and can only operate in benign sea states, I think the world would think I am quite mad.
In comparison with ASW Helo, it has 4 days (or longer) endurance. It can stay on station 16-20 times longer than the best ASW helo, Merlin. So these ASW drones cover totally different spectrum of ASW warfare.

As I said, even RN can provide only ~2 areas 24hr/7days covered with Merlin ASW helo (because we need 16-20 helos to support one). But, if we have 3-4 ASW drones, we can provide another area with it.

Merlin operation is good at "clearing up an area", regardless of blue-water or littoral.

ASW drones is good at "sea denial of an area", only littoral.

For me, rivals of ASW drones are, ASW corvettes, or OPVs towing CAPTAS-1/ST2400 sonar.
FoM_ASW.png

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:but if not I now think Leander can be made to work albeit not as a credible escort, simply as a presence ship for flag waving etc.
This for me is the most likely. Sure we can get the T31s, argue that we still have 19 first class escorts and pray for money in 20 years to replace them with something useful. However, my view is that that will be too late, something is coming and in my view it will be a Global “Trade Cold War” where access to resources and trade routes will be key to U.K. interests and our allies.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Current planning says stick with 14 escorts and rely on Allies to fill the gaps. This makes me very uncomfortable.
It makes us all uncomfortable and it shouldn’t have to come to this - the ultimate cause was IMO was the focus on the Blair land wars. The balance of funds between the three services need to be changed to reflect that there is virtually zero chance to do another Iraq or large scale Afghanistan operation - even if we wanted to it would take a year or more to scale up to do it. Fact is that this will not happen as politics always trumps logic.

What to do - IMO focus hard on maximising a high/low structure. There is no money for Mid.

High should be having as many operational flat tops, T45s, T26s and SSNs as possible, focused on U.K. defence and then core of power projection / Sea Control groups - having odd frigates here and there is good for training and flag waving but will have increasingly smaller ability on being able to shape local events.

Low level has to be maximising the current OPV and MCM fleet and moving to a new MHPC fleet to fill some of the “mid” gap, lower costs and maximise numbers.

In numbers it’s,

A) 2 CVFs, 1 (active) LPD, 6 T45s, 8 T26s, 5 T31s, 5 OPVs

Vs

B) 2 CVFs, 2 (active) LPDs , 6 T45s, 9-10 T26s, 8 OPVs

My vote is B.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Aethulwulf »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:If the mother ship detects a submarine at say, 40 miles, it would take one of these speedboats the better part of three hours getting launched and chugging its way to the contact. Chances the sub is still there: zero.

Or you want to surround the QE with a half a dozen of these boats to form an inner screen? Chances they can keep station with the carrier transiting at fleet speed through the bay of Biscay - once again: zero.

Ah but the old favorite, the coastal water "choke point" near a port or vulnerable coastline. Probably already has a network of permanently placed seabed sensors that function 24xx7x365 regardless of weather.
As you said, this small ASW drones cannot be a member of CVTF. They cannot replace ASW helos, and cannot be combined with "ship-sonar-detection --> sent to confirm --> attack" routine.

It is rather a "choke point", near-port, or vulnerable coastline surveyer. In passive ASW world, permanently placed seabed sensors would have been better. But now we need someone to perform active pinging. As the location of pinger is known from hundreds of miles away, leaving it seabed is too vulnerable. A fisher boat casting a net on it, anchoring the wire to cut, can easily defeat the sensors.

On here, I think ASW drones are needed. These drones will also work as sea-denial = preventing enemy SSK to sneak into some area of the sea.
If I told the world I'd invented a new ASW helicopter that's really, really slow, flies really, really low and can only operate in benign sea states, I think the world would think I am quite mad.
In comparison with ASW Helo, it has 4 days (or longer) endurance. It can stay on station 16-20 times longer than the best ASW helo, Merlin. So these ASW drones cover totally different spectrum of ASW warfare.

As I said, even RN can provide only ~2 areas 24hr/7days covered with Merlin ASW helo (because we need 16-20 helos to support one). But, if we have 3-4 ASW drones, we can provide another area with it.

Merlin operation is good at "clearing up an area", regardless of blue-water or littoral.

ASW drones is good at "sea denial of an area", only littoral.

For me, rivals of ASW drones are, ASW corvettes, or OPVs towing CAPTAS-1/ST2400 sonar.
FoM_ASW.png
Sorry, I've missed something. Please could you explain why we need 16-20 helos to support one.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Aethulwulf wrote:Sorry, I've missed something. Please could you explain why we need 16-20 helos to support one.
Following is my assumption:

A: A Merlin can fly 4-6 hours a day. It needs 3-4 times of maintenance hour than flying time. I understand it does not include heavy maintenance.
B: In short, we need 8-9 Merlin deployed on a fleet (say, QECV) to provide one always flying. (factor of 8-9)
C: We all know not all Merlin is deployed. I guess only a half, or even less. (factor of 2)

I understand "B" can be a bit less, but "C" can be more.

This gives me 16-20 Helos to keep one always flying. Rough estimate it is, but I think not far away. Surely more than 10.

[EDIT] Of course, ASW helo with its high mobility can cover larger area than a USV drone. They are different.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Aethulwulf »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:Sorry, I've missed something. Please could you explain why we need 16-20 helos to support one.
Following is my assumption:

A: A Merlin can fly 4-6 hours a day. It needs 3-4 times of maintenance hour than flying time. I understand it does not include heavy maintenance.
B: In short, we need 8-9 Merlin deployed on a fleet (say, QECV) to provide one always flying. (factor of 8-9)
C: We all know not all Merlin is deployed. I guess only a half, or even less. (factor of 2)

I understand "B" can be a bit less, but "C" can be more.

This gives me 16-20 Helos to keep one always flying. Rough estimate it is, but I think not far away. Surely not 10.
Some corrections...

Most helicopters need an average of 20 to 30 man-hours of maintenance for each flight hour. How long this takes depends upon the number of maintenance personnel available. For operations from a carrier, the RN likes to deploy about 16 maintenance personnel per helicopter. For frigates and destroyers, this drops to about 8 maintenance personnel per helicopter.

The 9 ASW Merlin on-board QE would be able to provide two helicopters always flying (searching with their dipping sonar) and a third on immediate stand by, ready to prosecute any targets.

Out of the 30 strong Merlin Mk2 fleet, the expectation is that 9 ASW + 5 Crowsnest will be deployed on a carrier, at least 1 more ASW will be aboard the TAPS, 5 will be in deep maintenance and the rest supporting training.

Does any of that change your calculations?

My rough estimate is that the 30 Mk2 fleet can keep the following operational:
2 + 1 ASW flying/immediately available for flying (Carrier), Plus
1 + 1 Crowsnest flying/immediately available for flying, Plus
0.25 ASW flying/immediately available for flying (TAPS)

5.25 Mk2s out of 30. Or 5.7 Helos are needed to keep one always flying.

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

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Realistically is that not were we are still likely to end up? Just with 5 not 3? It looks to me that with Leander we are really just getting the Batch 3 River class or stretched Khareef's that many were calling for at the time. Taken in that context Leander will fill a role but overall it will still leave a very unbalanced fleet with 14 Tier1 escorts, 8 OPV's and 5 Patrol Frigates. A way must be found to get the escort fleet back up to above 20.
For me had we spent the TOBA money of 635 million on 3 112 meter Khareef we could have then added one more to make it 4 from the 1.25 billion to leave a 9 billion pound budget with which we might of squeezed 10 type 26s out of. This would have given us a escort fleet of 16 tier 1 ships and 4 corvettes.

As I have said in the past we need a work horse frigate at a cost of 500 million

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

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

I would say aethulwulfs numbers are bang on the money! Essentially 3 a/c support an 24/7 orbit.

The more interesting question is if those sort of numbers are supporting carrier operations in year 1 for a 6 month deployment say how sustainable are they for say years 2, 3 or 4? We seen this after telic and herrick

We certainly can’t relieve one carrier with another if the task required endurance, and outside casd there is nothing merlin wise available anywhere other than on the said carrier.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

andrew98 wrote:Given £500m per ship I'd like a tricked out BMT Venator 110 (or even Venator 120)
It would be a solid option and should have been the T31 but the £250m budget ruled it out. Pity.

I would like to see something really innovative and maybe we should be a bit more ambitious than Venator 110 for a budget of £500m.
Repulse wrote:This for me is the most likely. Sure we can get the T31s, argue that we still have 19 first class escorts and pray for money in 20 years to replace them with something useful. However, my view is that that will be too late...
Agreed, it's always jam tomorrow. I am in favour of making the best of what we have to stave off further cuts in an effort to stabilise the budget but future procurement must be part of a fully costed and sustainable plan. Ambition must be equal to the level of finance HMG are prepared to provide.

It's not just the escorts, the entire fleet is now way out of balance in my opinion. We have half the SSN's we need, with no capacity to build more even if the finance was forthcoming. The Amphibious fleet is no longer the coherent force that was originally envisaged and has been badly affected by savage cuts with no current sign of improvement before 2033. The RFA has plenty of problems mainly due to a lack of manpower and where is the FSS programme heading? Is it 2 vessels? Is it 3 vessels? Are they going to be built in the UK? Abroad? Is there actually a plan in place? It makes you wonder. It looks like we are only going to get half of the MPA's that is really required, again Allies will be asked to fill the gaps. I could go on and on...

One thing the T31 has achieved is cost control. The budget is firmly sticking at £250m. What would have happened to the T26 programme if the budget had of been firmly set at £600m? That would have provided a £600m development budget, a £250m contingency fund and 14 Frigates. It's clear there are other problems involved, it's not just a lack of money. Personally I feel a £600m unit cost should have produced a perfectly credible and very capable Frigate.
Repulse wrote:It makes us all uncomfortable and it shouldn’t have to come to this - the ultimate cause was IMO was the focus on the Blair land wars. The balance of funds between the three services need to be changed to reflect that there is virtually zero chance to do another Iraq or large scale Afghanistan operation - even if we wanted to it would take a year or more to scale up to do it. Fact is that this will not happen as politics always trumps logic.
In my opinion the UK needs to revert back to a primarily maritime focused strategy. One thing Brexit might achieve is to remind everyone that we do actually live on an Island ( as if we needed reminding). :D
Repulse wrote:What to do - IMO focus hard on maximising a high/low structure. There is no money for Mid.
Sorry, have to disagree here. If we keep aiming for the absolute pinnacle of ground breaking innovation we will have to continue to cough up for the sky high development costs that go hand in hand with it. With the current UK defence budgets as they are we can no longer afford this unless we are happy to watch our armed forces shrink to the size of an irrelevance.

For example, if a pinnacle standard AAW Frigate costs £1bn and the UK can afford 6 this means that around 2 vessels should be available at any one time. In reality that means 1 deploys with the CSG and the other fills a gap elsewhere.

If at the outset the budget is fixed at £750m per vessel the UK can afford 9 instead of 6. This means that 2 AAW Frigates can deploy with the CSG and the third can fill the gap elsewhere. What is more effective, 1 'pinnacle' AAW Frigate or 2 highly credible AAW Frigates working as a team, with 1 acting as goalkeeper?

I understand this is a very simplistic example but my main point is RN can't get much smaller before it isn't fit for purpose. The reduction in hull numbers with each programme has to stop. Replacing Tier1 Frigates with cheap Patrol vessels isn't a solution in my opinion.

Repulse wrote:High should be having as many operational flat tops, T45s, T26s and SSNs as possible, focused on U.K. defence and then core of power projection / Sea Control groups - having odd frigates here and there is good for training and flag waving but will have increasingly smaller ability on being able to shape local events.
I agree up to a point but RN is now too small and a cost effective solution needs to be found to increase hull numbers back up to the required levels. As said before, cheap Patrol vessels aren't a solution if they are replacing Tier1 vessels.
Repulse wrote:Low level has to be maximising the current OPV and MCM fleet and moving to a new MHPC fleet to fill some of the “mid” gap, lower costs and maximise numbers.
Sounds good to me so if no more money is forthcoming I would look to sell the RB2's to the highest bidder and use the money to fast track and kick start the MHPC programme.
Tempest414 wrote:As I have said in the past we need a work horse frigate at a cost of 500 million
100% Agreed. At this point it's the only realistic option to halt the decline.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Aethulwulf wrote:Some corrections...

Most helicopters need an average of 20 to 30 man-hours of maintenance for each flight hour. How long this takes depends upon the number of maintenance personnel available. For operations from a carrier, the RN likes to deploy about 16 maintenance personnel per helicopter. For frigates and destroyers, this drops to about 8 maintenance personnel per helicopter.

The 9 ASW Merlin on-board QE would be able to provide two helicopters always flying (searching with their dipping sonar) and a third on immediate stand by, ready to prosecute any targets.

Out of the 30 strong Merlin Mk2 fleet, the expectation is that 9 ASW + 5 Crowsnest will be deployed on a carrier, at least 1 more ASW will be aboard the TAPS, 5 will be in deep maintenance and the rest supporting training.

Does any of that change your calculations?

My rough estimate is that the 30 Mk2 fleet can keep the following operational:
2 + 1 ASW flying/immediately available for flying (Carrier), Plus
1 + 1 Crowsnest flying/immediately available for flying, Plus
0.25 ASW flying/immediately available for flying (TAPS)

5.25 Mk2s out of 30. Or 5.7 Helos are needed to keep one always flying.
Thanks for interesting number. But I think "5.25 Mk2s" is not flying 24/7/365 on RN/FAA.

1: A flat top is typically deploying for 25% of the time. I guess "9 ASW + 5 Crowsnest" was also to be deployed only for 25% (for example, at least 25% will be in deep maintenance). It could be 33%, but surely less than 50% (less than 15 of 30).

2: Then, "2 out of 9 always flying" means, "3.3 out of 15 always flying". In total, 3.3 out of 30 is flying, I guess. Then 9 vs 1 (if item-1 is 50%). If it is 25%, 18 vs 1 flying, if 33% 13.5 vs 1 flying. (these are consistent with my original number).

Please note "immediately available" is not counted in my number. Merit of ASW helo is to be "immediately available" to react against ship-born CAPTAS-4. ASW drones are to be used to compensate CAPTAS4, not ASW helo. I think Merlin will be called by ASW drones' contacts.


On the otters hand, availability of ASW USV is not clear. In paper, it does not need training because it is drone, (but ASW analysis team needs training). Mechanical, and software reliability and how much an maintenance load is needed is also unclear.

For example, in general, "new" equipments always claim high availability, but in many cases fails.

It all needs testing, before deeply relying on it. But, anyway, ASW drones are MUST in future. "In what form?", is not clear, and "know how", "building up of tactics" is important. So, starting trial from some "promising" example will be a good way to go.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:...For example, if a pinnacle standard AAW Frigate costs £1bn and the UK can afford 6 this means that around 2 vessels should be available at any one time. In reality that means 1 deploys with the CSG and the other fills a gap elsewhere.

If at the outset the budget is fixed at £750m per vessel the UK can afford 9 instead of 6. This means that 2 AAW Frigates can deploy with the CSG and the third can fill the gap elsewhere. What is more effective, 1 'pinnacle' AAW Frigate or 2 highly credible AAW Frigates working as a team, with 1 acting as goalkeeper?
But a "£750m per vessel" AAW DD will be less than 75% capable compared to that costing "£1bn". We all know, this was exactly RN did with T42, 14 of which were built. T42 was not much different from FFG7, and far less than Kid-class. RN went vice-versa in T45, and RN got only 6.
Tempest414 wrote:As I have said in the past we need a work horse frigate at a cost of 500 million
100% Agreed. At this point it's the only realistic option to halt the decline.
Ban all Mk.41 VLS, mission bay, automatic 127mm-shell cannon arsenal (rely all "strike" capability on CV air wing). This must be the T23 replacements.

Aimed/required too much, costed too much, resulted in reduced number.

If going vice versa, aim/require low, cost low, and build in number.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But a "£750m per vessel" AAW DD will be less than 75% capable compared to that costing "£1bn". We all know, this was exactly RN did with T42, 14 of which were built. T42 was not much different from FFG7, and far less than Kid-class. RN went vice-versa in T45, and RN got only 6.
Is there a middle ground here? I am not suggesting reducing capability down to a T42 equivalent level. What I am suggesting is focusing the money available into capability enhancements that are tried and tested and provide value for money without sky high development costs. It's worth remembering that in the case of the T45's, the propulsion problems are still costing money a decade on, further reducing the tight budget. Was this level of complexity really necessary? If all costs related to these propulsion problems were totaled what would the big number be? The final figure could be eye watering.

Is it possible to design or adapt a vessel with T45 performance which costs £750m rather £1bn? I think It's too simplistic to say 75% of the cost means only 75% of the performance. How much was spent developing the hull and propulsion system on the T45? Could a cost saving have been made there which would have allowed more hulls to enter the water whilst maintaining performance levels. If the answer is yes then lessons have to be learned or the downward spiral will never stop.

The T31 programme still has a way to go but perhaps finally the penny has dropped. It's one thing having the finest vessels afloat but if that quest for superiority leads to hull numbers so low that the fleet can't effectively operate without vessels from Allies to fill the gaps then maybe a change in ethos is required.

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

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

Arguably that in between ship is the fremm, it’s reported cost including development is €850m each where as both type 45 and type 26 your looking at £1b+ each with development costs. Depending on the exchange rate that’s roughly the in between price point.

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

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:Arguably that in between ship is the fremm, it’s reported cost including development is €850m each where as both type 45 and type 26 your looking at £1b+ each with development costs. Depending on the exchange rate that’s roughly the in between price point.
FREMM, the ship that the Australians rejected in favor of the Type 26 and the ship that the Canadians have also thrown out of their competition.

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

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

Ron5

And so what. The question asked was discussing a 75% solution.

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

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:...For example, if a pinnacle standard AAW Frigate costs £1bn and the UK can afford 6 this means that around 2 vessels should be available at any one time. In reality that means 1 deploys with the CSG and the other fills a gap elsewhere.

If at the outset the budget is fixed at £750m per vessel the UK can afford 9 instead of 6. This means that 2 AAW Frigates can deploy with the CSG and the third can fill the gap elsewhere. What is more effective, 1 'pinnacle' AAW Frigate or 2 highly credible AAW Frigates working as a team, with 1 acting as goalkeeper?
Firstly, the T45's cost a little over 600m each to produce so Gordon Brown cancelling the last two saved approx 1.3billion over 2years. That's less than he wasted delaying the CVF program.

But, I think you are using the 1billion as an argument saying that surely four 750m ships are worth more than three 1billion ships.

What if the 1billion ship can handle 32 simultaneous aircraft/missile attacks and the 750mill ship can only handle 16? What if the 1 billion ship carries twice as many missiles, what if those missiles have twice the range?

What if the cheaper ship has a 75% probability of shooting down a mach 2 sea skimmer and the more expensive has a 90%?

Basically what I am asking in a long winded manner, is what if the cheaper ship has an unacceptable drop off in capability?

This is not some fantasy theory, it is exactly what happened. The UK dropped out of the Horizon program to produce Type 45's because it judged that the Horizons had an unacceptably lower level of capability. It was well understood by the MoD, Treasury & cabinet that extra costs would be incurred but they felt they were justified.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:Arguably that in between ship is the fremm, it’s reported cost including development is €850m each where as both type 45 and type 26 your looking at £1b+ each with development costs. Depending on the exchange rate that’s roughly the in between price point.
FREMM, the ship that the Australians rejected in favor of the Type 26 and the ship that the Canadians have also thrown out of their competition.
Based on the figures above, if the development programme had of been organised with a T31 fixed price of around £600m RN could have had around 13 FREMM's rather than 8 T26's. I'm not a big fan of the FREMM but 8 vs 13 is quite a leap.

It will interesting to see what USN make of FREMM in the FFG(X) competition.

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

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

along with the what ifs you add this to the list of questions!

What if your £750m ship means you don’t need to delete capabilities elsewhere in you procurement process or delay building or cancel ships to stay within your agreed budget but your £1b ship means you can’t!

Where is it the uk will send one of its frigates that the French won’t send one of there’s? Considering we’re now in a joint task force and operate together.

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

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Ron5 »

So let's look at the 500m frigate.

Let's assume the 500m has to include all the design & initial support costs just like the type 31 program's 250m. Let's also assume the same initial buy: 5 ships for 2.5 billion.

It's pretty clear that both the MoD and the shipyards figured out that the Type 31 250m was only achievable with a modified design. There just isn't room for a brand new design no matter how appealing (Venator).

So first question: do you want to go for a brand new design for your 500m? Of course you do. @Donald-san's rule of thumb is design & development costs two hulls so you now have 360m per ship to build & support. That's about 100m more each than the Type 31 to get the same capability.

So second question, what do you want to spend that 100m on? Easy to figure a laundry list. Seems that the RN would like to add ASW to the baseline Type 31. Also interested in NGS. Maybe more speed. Maybe improved survivability. A shiip more like the FFG(X), able to make a meaningful contribution to a carrier task force so better communications & networking.

So, Merlin flight deck & hangar, towed arrays, hull sonar, 5" gun, bigger magazine, gas turbine & new gearboxes plus beefed up propulsion, improved DC zones & duplication of systems plus a raft of extra electronics. Plus space for all the extra crew that will be needed.

Mmmm I think we just blew the 100m. Maybe additional Type 26 would be more cost effective. At the end of their production run, maybe 600m UPC per ship?

Once again, a long winded way of saying it's the development and design costs that kill the idea of a new class. Much preferable to go with a modification of an existing design. Or just more of the same. Which is why the USN is still building Arleigh Burkes.

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

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:Arguably that in between ship is the fremm, it’s reported cost including development is €850m each where as both type 45 and type 26 your looking at £1b+ each with development costs. Depending on the exchange rate that’s roughly the in between price point.
FREMM, the ship that the Australians rejected in favor of the Type 26 and the ship that the Canadians have also thrown out of their competition.
Based on the figures above, if the development programme had of been organised with a T31 fixed price of around £600m RN could have had around 13 FREMM's rather than 8 T26's. I'm not a big fan of the FREMM but 8 vs 13 is quite a leap.

It will interesting to see what USN make of FREMM in the FFG(X) competition.
1. You can't compare costs from different countries without understand the basis on which they were calculated.

2. The Type 26's will not cost more than 1 billion each. That's BS.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:This is not some fantasy theory, it is exactly what happened. The UK dropped out of the Horizon program to produce Type 45's because it judged that the Horizons had an unacceptably lower level of capability. It was well understood by the MoD, Treasury & cabinet that extra costs would be incurred but they felt they were justified.
Thanks Ron,

I am not quibbling over the effectiveness of the T45's AAW capability which is without question world class. My concern with the T45 design was that too many unproven technologies were incorporated which vastly increased the risk factor. Some of these 'risks' have now cost a lot of time and money not to mention the unwelcome negative PR for RN and British engineering in general.

The AAW Frigate example was only a small part of a wider point about introducing better cost control into RN vessel procurement but I am more interested in finding a way out of the current situation rather than rake over the past with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Would a more sensible way to proceed be to introduce a Tier2 structure into both the Frigate and Destroyer classes so that at least half of the escort fleet is at any one time running on proven technology?

So for example, the Tier1 vessels would be retained for around 15yrs at which point they are downgraded to Tier2 vessels and retained for another 15yrs before disposal. The Tier2 vessels would have no development costs as they are simply reduced spec Tier1 vessels. If all these vessels used the same basic hull form further savings could be made and if a crisis was to develop all Frigates and Destroyers could quickly be refitted back to Tier1 status. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

This would give RN brand new AAW Destroyers and GP/ASW Frigates every 15yrs. As the vessels are replaced so frequently there would be no need to spend Billions forging new technologies as it would simply be a case of using the best technology available at the time which another nation has already had to swallow the development costs. With this steady drumbeat of ships It should be possible to grow the fleet, introduce stability into the UK shipbuilding industry and reverse the decline relatively quickly.

Post Reply