Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

[SW1]

I don’t think the treasury or the cabinet would of give too much of hoot about the capability offered I think what they where most concerned with was the fact the uk would likely be acquiring the most units and spending the most on the program and were getting much less workshare than French and Italian yards in return.

However I would agree the modification to existing design and to keep building units is by far the best was fwd. The mess were in is largely as a result of abandoning that very principle particularly with type 23. So going fwd from here this is what must happen with type 26. To be honest there’s arguments to say the future fleet could have 12 high end escorts our budget can’t sustain much more without some considerable change. That would be say four assigned to each carrier group in a high low readiness cycle and 4 assigned to the North Atlantic. Much like a US carrier it deploys with 4 or 5 escorts but they usually split up and go about various tasks with only 1 staying with the carrier the others only rejoining the group for transit of particularly high risk areas.

If Those 12 where type 26 replacing both type 23 and type 45 with a radar fit similar to the Australian hunter class. A long term contract would give security to industry to invest in more efficient build practises with the incentive of the more you save the more we build. As we get to the end run we can simply start replacing the early examples and sell on the second hand market. The first 3 delivered as currently defined and refitted later. Such a long term decision may allow closer cooperation with Australia and economies of scale in both sustainment and training.

[Tempest414]

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.

party the problem at the moment is the low numbers per ship class driving up costs per unit this is why if we were to go for a 500 million pound frigate there would need to be a 10 ship order.

[Ron5]

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.

It's a very difficult problem.

UK/PAAMS in the Type 45's was all new technology and high risk but it paid off to all accounts. Hurrah. Not so much the propulsion system. Boo.

Somebody famous said one high risk item per new ship is fine, two are not. I would add, zero is also bad. To stay on the safe side of the bleeding edge for everything means you're giving up a key advantage of the Western nations i.e. technological leadership.

The MoD certainly applied the Type 45 lessons to the Type 26. I am not aware of any part of that ship that is new unproven technology. The key systems have been trialed and de-risked on the Type 23's. It's not the high risk nature of the type 26's that attract criticism, it's just their perceived high program costs. I say "perceived" because they look rather inexpensive to American eyes.

[Ron5]

I don’t think the treasury or the cabinet would of give too much of hoot about the capability offered I think what they where most concerned with was the fact the uk would likely be acquiring the most units and spending the most on the program and were getting much less workshare than French and Italian yards in return.

However I would agree the modification to existing design and to keep building units is by far the best was fwd. The mess were in is largely as a result of abandoning that very principle particularly with type 23. So going fwd from here this is what must happen with type 26. To be honest there’s arguments to say the future fleet could have 12 high end escorts our budget can’t sustain much more without some considerable change. That would be say four assigned to each carrier group in a high low readiness cycle and 4 assigned to the North Atlantic. Much like a US carrier it deploys with 4 or 5 escorts but they usually split up and go about various tasks with only 1 staying with the carrier the others only rejoining the group for transit of particularly high risk areas.

If Those 12 where type 26 replacing both type 23 and type 45 with a radar fit similar to the Australian hunter class. A long term contract would give security to industry to invest in more efficient build practises with the incentive of the more you save the more we build. As we get to the end run we can simply start replacing the early examples and sell on the second hand market. The first 3 delivered as currently defined and refitted later. Such a long term decision may allow closer cooperation with Australia and economies of scale in both sustainment and training.

Yeah replacing Type 45's with Australian spec Type 26's sounds a winner. Right up there with the RN buying FREMMs.

[Ron5]

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.

party the problem at the moment is the low numbers per ship class driving up costs per unit this is why if we were to go for a 500 million pound frigate there would need to be a 10 ship order.

Or buy 10 Type 26.

[dmereifield]

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.

party the problem at the moment is the low numbers per ship class driving up costs per unit this is why if we were to go for a 500 million pound frigate there would need to be a 10 ship order.

Why a new design if the aim is still to get best value? What would a £500 million unit cost Leander or Arrowhead 140 look like?

[SW1]

I don’t think the treasury or the cabinet would of give too much of hoot about the capability offered I think what they where most concerned with was the fact the uk would likely be acquiring the most units and spending the most on the program and were getting much less workshare than French and Italian yards in return.

However I would agree the modification to existing design and to keep building units is by far the best was fwd. The mess were in is largely as a result of abandoning that very principle particularly with type 23. So going fwd from here this is what must happen with type 26. To be honest there’s arguments to say the future fleet could have 12 high end escorts our budget can’t sustain much more without some considerable change. That would be say four assigned to each carrier group in a high low readiness cycle and 4 assigned to the North Atlantic. Much like a US carrier it deploys with 4 or 5 escorts but they usually split up and go about various tasks with only 1 staying with the carrier the others only rejoining the group for transit of particularly high risk areas.

If Those 12 where type 26 replacing both type 23 and type 45 with a radar fit similar to the Australian hunter class. A long term contract would give security to industry to invest in more efficient build practises with the incentive of the more you save the more we build. As we get to the end run we can simply start replacing the early examples and sell on the second hand market. The first 3 delivered as currently defined and refitted later. Such a long term decision may allow closer cooperation with Australia and economies of scale in both sustainment and training.

Yeah replacing Type 45's with Australian spec Type 26's sounds a winner. Right up there with the RN buying FREMMs.

Good glad you approve

[Repulse]

Maybe a AAW T26 variant maybe the right approach, but for now the T45 is right at the top of the AAW class. If the UK wants the RN to play (albeit at a smaller scale) in the global premier league then it needs 100% ships. There is value in numbers, but let us not kid ourselves that we can play with the big boys and make a difference with 80% kit.

[Lord Jim]

Actually building the City class to the same design as the Hunter class wouldn't be all that bad. We could still employ our CMS and a number of other UK specific systems such as the Decoys we choose to use but surely the greater commonality would have some advantages. Having a follow on class that can supplement the T-45s or even replace them based on the T-26 is also a good idea in my book. Keep the building programme ticking over rather than the current stop start.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Looking at the past, I agree T45 adopting 3 completely new technology was wrong (PAAMS, IEP, and WR21 GT, the last one failed). T26 was too ambitious in capability and margins (not technology).

I think the worst thing was the optimistic estimation of program cost. In other words, the program cost "margin" estimation was toooo optimistic. For example, I think the T26 was aiming at 500M GBP ( x(13+2D&I) = 7.5G) unit-cost, and turned out to be 750M ( x(8+2D&I) = 7.5G) --> 1.5 times cost overrun between the initial estimation and the contracted value.

If this x1.5 margin for uncertainty was properly budgeted (forced), I think T26 initial delay should have been foreseen, to better used the 650M GBP River B2 cost, and T31e program must have more time.

For example, if we had the T31 program on 2012 (~2 years before River B2 contract) with a total budget of 1.25+0.65 = 1.9B GBP. Many fantasy could have realized. What a dreamy situation. Of course, if it really happened in 2012, many here would have screamed for "no tier-2 escorts", "just go ahead with T26", "just forget the stupid pessimistic Treasury-driven 1.5 times cost margin for uncertainty". But, eventually, RN had a better fleet than now planned.


But, future is what is important. What can we learn from here?

[Tempest414]

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.

party the problem at the moment is the low numbers per ship class driving up costs per unit this is why if we were to go for a 500 million pound frigate there would need to be a 10 ship order.

Or buy 10 Type 26.

I have said for some time now that if the UK was to adopted a 450 million pound year on year escort budget set for 25 years we could have 12 or more type 26s . However due to the timing of type 45 finishing and type 26 starting we will need to start type 45 replacement alongside type 26 or extend type 45s life or as what is happening go for a one off cheap program to fill the gap.

I have also said in the past that type 31 budget should be 2 billion or 400 million per ship

[SW1]

Tempest

Exactly many forget the 1st type 26 won’t be operational until 2027 by which stage type 45 will
have been in service for 20 years by the 4th type 26 it will of been 25 years +. Taking the decision now on a long term strategy give confidence to the manufacturing base which has deep distrust of the MoD also commonality within the fleet and gives confidence to future customers there will be a large user base. With only 3 type 26 ordered the scars of the dreaded up to appearing in MoD literature looms large.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the 1st type 26 won’t be operational until 2027 by which stage type 45 will
have been in service for 20 years by the 4th type 26 it will of been 25 years +. Taking the decision now on a long term strategy give confidence to the manufacturing base which has deep distrust of the MoD[;] also commonality within the fleet

- food for thought!

[Jake1992]

Tempest

Exactly many forget the 1st type 26 won’t be operational until 2027 by which stage type 45 will
have been in service for 20 years by the 4th type 26 it will of been 25 years +. Taking the decision now on a long term strategy give confidence to the manufacturing base which has deep distrust of the MoD also commonality within the fleet and gives confidence to future customers there will be a large user base. With only 3 type 26 ordered the scars of the dreaded up to appearing in MoD literature looms large.

For me I would of liked to of gone for a long term plan based around 3 classed all based on varying lengths of the T26 hull design

1 - the T26 it's self with a few changes: replace the mid ship CAMM mushroom silos with a greater number of ExLS silos, repulse the front CAMM silos with 16 extra mk41s

2- a T48: the T26 hull stretched to 165m, 96 mk41 split with 64 up front and 32 mid ship ( to allow more than just air deffence to be carried ) replace artisan with an improved Sampsons or what every replaces that, remove ASW quieting such as rafting.

3 - a T27: a T26 hull shorted to around 130m, reduce the flight deck to merlins capable only, remove the mission bay and mid ship VLS. 6 ExLS forward for 24 CAMM with 8-16 mk41s just behind them, 1 phalanx on the hanger roof and reduce the ASW messure to similar to the FTI.

This would of allowed commonality whist still allowing each ship the nessisary changes to optimise for there given roles. It would also allow for design teams to keep up there skills so we don't end up in a similar state to the US

[shark bait]

Somebody famous said one high risk item per new ship is fine, two are not. I would add, zero is also bad. To stay on the safe side of the bleeding edge for everything means you're giving up a key advantage of the Western nations i.e. technological leadership.

Absolutely, and its largely the same for all product developments, introduce one awesome new thing at a time, and increment everything else. Trouble is we're so slow at building new frigates and jets their is a rush to cram everything in.

Better to show some restraint, build in some empty space, and accept incremental upgrades through life. This is where the T31 will fall on its arse.

QE only introduced one new thing, and so far that is going well.
The T26 doesn't appear to introduce anything new at all.

[Poiuytrewq]

For me I would of liked to of gone for a long term plan based around 3 classed all based on varying lengths of the T26 hull design

I think we would all like to see a costed (and affordable) long term plan

1 - the T26 it's self with a few changes: replace the mid ship CAMM mushroom silos with a greater number of ExLS silos, repulse the front CAMM silos with 16 extra mk41s

Sounds very like the Hunter Class but with Artisan?

2- a T48: the T26 hull stretched to 165m, 96 mk41 split with 64 up front and 32 mid ship ( to allow more than just air deffence to be carried ) replace artisan with an improved Sampsons or what every replaces that, remove ASW quieting such as rafting.

As you know I have tried to mock this up but trying to work out the technology that will go into the T45's replacement at this stage is almost impossible. The costs were also sky high mainly due to the small number of hulls (6) making the unit price near enough cost prohibitive. I am currently working on a more cost effective solution to try and find an affordable way to increase hull numbers but if you would like to see a mock up using today's tech such as a T26 stretched to 165m with Sampson/S1850M and 96 VLS cells I will post it ASAP.

3 - a T27: a T26 hull shorted to around 130m, reduce the flight deck to merlins capable only, remove the mission bay and mid ship VLS. 6 ExLS forward for 24 CAMM with 8-16 mk41s just behind them, 1 phalanx on the hanger roof and reduce the ASW messure to similar to the FTI.

Sounds great to me. Personally I think something along the lines of one of these variants should form the basis of the UK's £500m Frigate. At least the possibility should be discounted before moving on to another hull form in an effort to reduce development costs. How do you get from a £750m unit cost to £500m? Others disagree but I think the unit cost for a Type 27 could come down to as low as £600m if the pace of build was optimised for efficiency and certain systems such as the TLAM capability, some of the VLS cells and the auto ammo magazine for the Mk45 were removed, simplifying the design. The big question is how do you get from £600m to £500m? That's a LOT harder but not impossible and the FTI is the key to how it's possible. Out goes the CODLOG propulsion and in goes a much simpler CODELOD with a maximum speed of around 27knts and ideally 15/16knts with electric drive. At £500m impressive sound dampening measures should be affordable.

Type 27 (Mk2) 125

image.jpg

Mk45, 24/36 CAMM, 8/16 Mk41 VLS Strike, 2x 30mm's, Single Phalanx. Double Merlin capable hanger/combined mission space and Merlin capable flight deck.


Type 27 (Mk2) 130

image.jpg

Mk45, 24/36 CAMM, 8/16 Mk41 VLS Strike, 2x 30mm's, Single Phalanx. Double Merlin capable hanger/combined mission space and Chinook capable flight deck.


Type 27 (Mk2) 150

image.jpg

Mk45, 24/36 CAMM, 8/16 Mk41 VLS Strike, 2x 30mm's, Single Phalanx. Double Merlin capable hanger/combined mission space and 2 Merlin capable landing spots on flight deck.

Would the performance be as good as a Type 26? No.

Would the performance be good enough to serve a purpose? I think it would and obviously the French have come to the same conclusion.

Jake1992, Is this roughly what you had in mind?

Here's the FTI specs for comparison,

The FTI will have a displacement of about 4200 tonnes with a crew of 125 sailors. It will be capable of anti-submarine warfare, anti-air warfare, anti-surface warfare as well as the support of special forces missions.

Thales is set to supply a number of brand new, next-gen systems:
- The CAPTAS-4 Compact sonar
- The SEA FIRE radar
- Aquilon integrated naval communication system
- The SENTINEL electronic warfare system

Safran Electronics & Defense will supply a new electro-optical FCS, the PASEO XLR.

Provisional configuration (to be confirmed):
76mm main gun
2x Narhwal 20mm remote guns
8x Exocet MM40 Blk III anti-ship missiles
2x Sylver A50 launchers for 16x Aster 30 missiles
Space for 2x extra Sylver A70 launchers
MU90 torpedoes
Hangar for one NH90 helicopter and one UAV
Fitted for 4x Sylena Mk2 decoy launchers but with 2x of them

image.jpg

image.jpg

[Jake1992]

For me I would of liked to of gone for a long term plan based around 3 classed all based on varying lengths of the T26 hull design

I think we would all like to see a costed (and affordable) long term plan

1 - the T26 it's self with a few changes: replace the mid ship CAMM mushroom silos with a greater number of ExLS silos, repulse the front CAMM silos with 16 extra mk41s

Sounds very like the Hunter Class but with Artisan?

2- a T48: the T26 hull stretched to 165m, 96 mk41 split with 64 up front and 32 mid ship ( to allow more than just air deffence to be carried ) replace artisan with an improved Sampsons or what every replaces that, remove ASW quieting such as rafting.

As you know I have tried to mock this up but trying to work out the technology that will go into the T45's replacement at this stage is almost impossible. The costs were also sky high mainly due to the small number of hulls (6) making the unit price near enough cost prohibitive. I am currently working on a more cost effective solution to try and find an affordable way to increase hull numbers but if you would like to see a mock up using today's tech such as a T26 stretched to 165m with Sampson/S1850M and 96 VLS cells I will post it ASAP.

3 - a T27: a T26 hull shorted to around 130m, reduce the flight deck to merlins capable only, remove the mission bay and mid ship VLS. 6 ExLS forward for 24 CAMM with 8-16 mk41s just behind them, 1 phalanx on the hanger roof and reduce the ASW messure to similar to the FTI.

Sounds great to me. Personally I think something along the lines of one of these variants should form the basis of the UK's £500m Frigate. At least the possibility should be discounted before moving on to another hull form in an effort to reduce development costs. How do you get from a £750m unit cost to £500m? Others disagree but I think the unit cost for a Type 27 could come down to as low as £600m if the pace of build was optimised for efficiency and certain systems such as the TLAM capability, some of the VLS cells and the auto ammo magazine for the Mk45 were removed, simplifying the design. The big question is how do you get from £600m to £500m? That's a LOT harder but not impossible and the FTI is the key to how it's possible. Out goes the CODLOG propulsion and in goes a much simpler CODELOD with a maximum speed of around 27knts and ideally 15/16knts with electric drive. At £500m impressive sound dampening measures should be affordable.

Type 27 (Mk2) 125

image.jpg

Mk45, 24/36 CAMM, 8/16 Mk41 VLS Strike, 2x 30mm's, Single Phalanx. Double Merlin capable hanger/combined mission space and Merlin capable flight deck.


Type 27 (Mk2) 130

image.jpg

Mk45, 24/36 CAMM, 8/16 Mk41 VLS Strike, 2x 30mm's, Single Phalanx. Double Merlin capable hanger/combined mission space and Chinook capable flight deck.


Type 27 (Mk2) 150

image.jpg

Mk45, 24/36 CAMM, 8/16 Mk41 VLS Strike, 2x 30mm's, Single Phalanx. Double Merlin capable hanger/combined mission space and 2 Merlin capable landing spots on flight deck.

Would the performance be as good as a Type 26? No.

Would the performance be good enough to serve a purpose? I think it would and obviously the French have come to the same conclusion.

Jake1992, Is this roughly what you had in mind?

Here's the FTI specs for comparison,

The FTI will have a displacement of about 4200 tonnes with a crew of 125 sailors. It will be capable of anti-submarine warfare, anti-air warfare, anti-surface warfare as well as the support of special forces missions.

Thales is set to supply a number of brand new, next-gen systems:
- The CAPTAS-4 Compact sonar
- The SEA FIRE radar
- Aquilon integrated naval communication system
- The SENTINEL electronic warfare system

Safran Electronics & Defense will supply a new electro-optical FCS, the PASEO XLR.

Provisional configuration (to be confirmed):
76mm main gun
2x Narhwal 20mm remote guns
8x Exocet MM40 Blk III anti-ship missiles
2x Sylver A50 launchers for 16x Aster 30 missiles
Space for 2x extra Sylver A70 launchers
MU90 torpedoes
Hangar for one NH90 helicopter and one UAV
Fitted for 4x Sylena Mk2 decoy launchers but with 2x of them

image.jpg

image.jpg

1 - the T26 upgrades I put forward would actually gives ours more fire power than the hunter class, 40 mk41 cells and 48-60 EsXL cells compared to 32 mk41s and 8 canister launchers.

2 - I agree it is almost impossible to tell what would replace sampsons right now that why I mentioned an upgraded Sampsons so people could have an idea of what I was thinking.
Yes if you could show me what a 165m T26s hull with sampsons and 96 mk41 would look like it'd be much appreciated.


The T27 (mk2) 125 is pretty much bag on what I was thinking. Your right price would all depend on numbers just like the T45 but I think with the commonality between the 3 classes I think some economy of scale could be achieved to help reduce unit price

[Poiuytrewq]

Yes if you could show me what a 165m T26s hull with sampsons and 96 mk41 would look like it'd be much appreciated.

Personally I think a few of these would slot in nicely.

T26/T45 Hybrid 165

image.jpg

Plenty of space for 64 Mk41 cells up front and another 64 Mk41 cells amidships, 128 in total!

Let me know if you want any alterations made.

[Jake1992]

A fleet of these 3 classes loaded out as Iv described above would set us up with a flexible and very capable navy. It would also give us an ecomnoy of scale on build while also reduce training and maintainence cost.

[Ron5]

Try to have a reasnable chat about Type 31 and alternatives and get blown out of the water with a bunch of fantasy stuff. Pisses me off.

I have zero problem with fantasy but only in its own dedicated thread.

For goodness sake moderators get off your asses and split fantasy from actual. Two threads: type 31 discussion & fantasy ships. Not hard.

[Jake1992]

Try to have a reasnable chat about Type 31 and alternatives and get blown out of the water with a bunch of fantasy stuff. Pisses me off.

I have zero problem with fantasy but only in its own dedicated thread.

For goodness sake moderators get off your asses and split fantasy from actual. Two threads: type 31 discussion & fantasy ships. Not hard.

What do you mean on the fleet that is for fanticey fleet descustions

Stop thinking your convos the only one that matters others are allowed to descuse on this, and if you notice people were talking about how HMG should stop lurching from bundled project to bundled project and set out a long term plan based around s common base design. This would allow economy of scale and continuity with training and maintainence while also giving more sercurity to the builders

[Poiuytrewq]

Jake1992, here you go all cleaned up on one image.

image.jpg

[SW1]

Jake 1992

Given type 26s size I don’t really see the need to extend or shorten the length of the hull. It would more be about what sensors are incorporated and integrating them with the combat management system. The benefit of having the missile launchers type 26 will have is we can incorporate almost anything we would like there’s plenty of room. As these will be our high end escorts and probably no more than 12 in number it seems pointless to have multiple hull types.

It’s what provides the other capabilities a navy needs is what type 31 should become and I would look very different. Perhaps a class of 12 here also only covering everything else utilising the unmanned systems as discussed in the previous pages.

[SW1]

Maybe a AAW T26 variant maybe the right approach, but for now the T45 is right at the top of the AAW class. If the UK wants the RN to play (albeit at a smaller scale) in the global premier league then it needs 100% ships. There is value in numbers, but let us not kid ourselves that we can play with the big boys and make a difference with 80% kit.

Just exactly who is this global premier league and what’s it doing and who are these big boys? People have already dismissed fremm and by extension the French navy so there not premier league there’s no one else in Europe. This chimes with the emotive language that emanated from Whitehall about being tier 1 it looks good in the newspaper but is Largely irrelevant in the real world.

[ArmChairCivvy]

chimes with the emotive language that emanated from Whitehall about being tier 1 it looks good in the newspaper

Don't forget "full spectrum"... we need to have a lot of reasons to spend more - and get less