Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

Which Anti-Ship Missile Should be Selected for the Type 26?

Lockheed Martin LRASM
164
52%
Kongsberg NSM
78
25%
Boeing Harpoon Next Gen
44
14%
MBDA Exocet Blk III
21
7%
None (stick to guided ammo and FASGW from Helicopters)
8
3%
 
Total votes: 315

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

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 11:28 Yep that is what they are saying 8.17 billion for 8 ships that still need a ton of kit added to do there job so right now type 26 is 170 million over budget and the first isn't in the water. Kills any dream around here that ship 9 could be built for 800 million or less I can see the cost hitting 1.2 billion per ship
Why? Your calculation does not give this number "cost hitting 1.2 billion per ship"? How?

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

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 13:25
Tempest414 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 11:28 Yep that is what they are saying 8.17 billion for 8 ships that still need a ton of kit added to do there job so right now type 26 is 170 million over budget and the first isn't in the water. Kills any dream around here that ship 9 could be built for 800 million or less I can see the cost hitting 1.2 billion per ship
Why? Your calculation does not give this number "cost hitting 1.2 billion per ship"? How?
Why what ?

as for me thinking that type 26 could hit 1.2 billion per ship is as of right now each ship is costing 1.02 billion and we don't have a single ship in the water and the first 3 have cost 1.33 billion now we might get lucky and and keep it down but we have had no weapons integration for this class as of yet

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

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

JohnM wrote: 15 Nov 2022, 14:46
Ron5 wrote: 15 Nov 2022, 14:32
JohnM wrote: 15 Nov 2022, 14:15 Do these £4.2B include GFE or not? Does anyone know? The T31's supposed £1.25B turned into £2B once GFE was included... I wouldn't be surprised if the final cost per hull of the Batch 2 T26s went over £1B.
Firstly, only an effing idiot divides contract value by units to determine unit cost.

If you want to determine UPC, you must isolate the build cost part of the contract and divide that by # of units.

Good luck finding that out since HMG stopped the national audit office publishing that level of detail. Way too embarrassing, CS knighthoods were at stake.

Secondly, MoD/HMG usually announces total program budget so would include every little 'ting: development, build, test, support, infrastructure, warranties, etc etc etc. Including any GFX.

Because a) it's supposed to be the way they evaluate the affordability of the program and b) UK politicians want to big up every defense contract because with their other hand they are taking the ax to other programs.

Cameron provides one of the best examples, expecting to receive a rough reception at the heads of NATO meeting in Wales because he and his pal Osbourne had just cut UK defense by 30%, he proudly announced a multi-billion contract to develop and build Ajax. Even had a prototype sitting on the adjacent golf course for the delegates to oo and ah at. Goes without saying that that was not one of the finest procurement decisions. But hey, dipshit politicians. And in Osbourne's case, plain dishonest. Are they both in the Lords yet?
We’ll, when the T31 contract was signed it was for £1.25B and eventually it came out those were only the build costs and you’d have to tack on another £750 M on top for GFE… so… no, you’re wrong in what concerns the RN…
That's not quite what happened.

Initially Type 31 GFX was to be kept to an absolute minimum so that the 1.25 billion would cover everything. However both Bae and Babcocks said they couldn't build a ship acceptable to the RN for that price. So rather than losing political face by increasing the contract amount, the MoD/Treasury like the slippery deceitful a-holes they are, moved the goalposts by taking some expensive systems (primarily CAAMs) out of the contract to be funded by HMG as GFX. Thus leaving the impression that the 1.25 billion was a target born of Treasury brilliance.

In other words, the T31 amount of GFX is a large spin doctor manifestation. Normal service will be resumed with this batch 2 contract. The cost of CAAMs and the other systems will be contained within the contracted amount. Just like they were with Batch 1.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by JohnM »

Ron5 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 15:52
JohnM wrote: 15 Nov 2022, 14:46
Ron5 wrote: 15 Nov 2022, 14:32
JohnM wrote: 15 Nov 2022, 14:15 Do these £4.2B include GFE or not? Does anyone know? The T31's supposed £1.25B turned into £2B once GFE was included... I wouldn't be surprised if the final cost per hull of the Batch 2 T26s went over £1B.
Firstly, only an effing idiot divides contract value by units to determine unit cost.

If you want to determine UPC, you must isolate the build cost part of the contract and divide that by # of units.

Good luck finding that out since HMG stopped the national audit office publishing that level of detail. Way too embarrassing, CS knighthoods were at stake.

Secondly, MoD/HMG usually announces total program budget so would include every little 'ting: development, build, test, support, infrastructure, warranties, etc etc etc. Including any GFX.

Because a) it's supposed to be the way they evaluate the affordability of the program and b) UK politicians want to big up every defense contract because with their other hand they are taking the ax to other programs.

Cameron provides one of the best examples, expecting to receive a rough reception at the heads of NATO meeting in Wales because he and his pal Osbourne had just cut UK defense by 30%, he proudly announced a multi-billion contract to develop and build Ajax. Even had a prototype sitting on the adjacent golf course for the delegates to oo and ah at. Goes without saying that that was not one of the finest procurement decisions. But hey, dipshit politicians. And in Osbourne's case, plain dishonest. Are they both in the Lords yet?
We’ll, when the T31 contract was signed it was for £1.25B and eventually it came out those were only the build costs and you’d have to tack on another £750 M on top for GFE… so… no, you’re wrong in what concerns the RN…
That's not quite what happened.

Initially Type 31 GFX was to be kept to an absolute minimum so that the 1.25 billion would cover everything. However both Bae and Babcocks said they couldn't build a ship acceptable to the RN for that price. So rather than losing political face by increasing the contract amount, the MoD/Treasury like the slippery deceitful a-holes they are, moved the goalposts by taking some expensive systems (primarily CAAMs) out of the contract to be funded by HMG as GFX. Thus leaving the impression that the 1.25 billion was a target born of Treasury brilliance.

In other words, the T31 amount of GFX is a large spin doctor manifestation. Normal service will be resumed with this batch 2 contract. The cost of CAAMs and the other systems will be contained within the contracted amount. Just like they were with Batch 1.
I hope you're right, I really do.

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

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

JohnM wrote: 15 Nov 2022, 14:49
Ron5 wrote: 15 Nov 2022, 14:34
SKB wrote: 15 Nov 2022, 14:30 Type 26 is purposely designed as an anti-submarine frigate, not as a general purpose frigate or as an air defence destroyer.
The RN doesn't do single purpose major warships any more. One of the Falklands war lessons.
So… let me se if I have this straight… T45 isn’t a specialist AAW destroyer and the T26s aren’t specialist ASW frigates… right…🙄 of course every ship will perform whichever mission it’s assigned, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t designed with a specialist role in mind as the primary focus…
I was reading @SKB's to imply that any Batch 2 improvements should be limited to ASW because that's what the class is for. I responded accordingly.

BTW, asking a ship to perform
whatever task it is assigned
only goes as far as tasks the ship has the capability to perform.

It's a matter of historical record that the Falklands war resulted in a major redesign of the T23's away from being a single purpose (ASW) warship.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 15:59
It's a matter of historical record that the Falklands war resulted in a major redesign of the T23's away from being a single purpose (ASW) warship.
And a redesign of the Type 22 Batch 3 as well. Turns out guns were useful after all..
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 3):
Ron5serge750Jensy

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

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 10:34 So 4.2billion for 5 ships on top of 3.7 b and counting for the first 3 with no medium/long range anti air capability, no anti ship capability, no land attack capability and no offensive anti submarine capability is that roughly what we saying.
Such an ignorant comment can only have come from an RAF type.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 15:59 It's a matter of historical record that the Falklands war resulted in a major redesign of the T23's away from being a single purpose (ASW) warship.
Arguably in the original concept the T23s weren't actually warships just Sonar towing tugs with Sea Wolf and Helicopters on the Fort Class motherships.

pko100
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 07 Feb 2020, 10:21
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by pko100 »

So for previous posters - Ron5 etc, how much new GWS35 equipment has been bought for the Type 31 programme ?

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SD67 »

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... in-glasgow

It's 4.2 billion for 5. Pleasantly surprised, someone has done their homework. Unless maybe GFE exluded? Or maybe the investment in Govan is going to pay off

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

pko100 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 20:08 So for previous posters - Ron5 etc, how much new GWS35 equipment has been bought for the Type 31 programme ?
If your the contractor you want as little GFE as possible because you frankly don't know where it has been , what condition it is in and what repairs or refurbishments it may need despite what MOD\DE&S may have told you.

What GFE is there on T31? CAMM control boxes and some SIGINT equipment? Or is it a procurement slight of hand and MOD have bought the guns, radar etc direct from BAE\Thales and supplied as GFE to Babcock?

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

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

pko100 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 20:08 So for previous posters - Ron5 etc, how much new GWS35 equipment has been bought for the Type 31 programme ?
The T31 GWS 35 order was publicized, I suggest you google for details. Try CAAM or Sea Ceptor as search words.

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

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 21:10
pko100 wrote: 16 Nov 2022, 20:08 So for previous posters - Ron5 etc, how much new GWS35 equipment has been bought for the Type 31 programme ?
If your the contractor you want as little GFE as possible because you frankly don't know where it has been , what condition it is in and what repairs or refurbishments it may need despite what MOD\DE&S may have told you.

What GFE is there on T31? CAMM control boxes and some SIGINT equipment? Or is it a procurement slight of hand and MOD have bought the guns, radar etc direct from BAE\Thales and supplied as GFE to Babcock?
The MoD doesn't like GFX either. It gives the shipyard the ability to use it as an excuse: "I'm late because you delivered XXX late and in bad condition". The DE&S honcho at the beginning of the T31 program said GFX would be an absolute minimum. Events overtook him but the sentiment was genuine.

I believe the T31 GFX deal was limited to the CAAM system as supplied by MBDA and the sneaky beaky stuff. But I don't think that has been officially spelled out i.e. leaves wiggle room.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Lord Jim

pko100
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 07 Feb 2020, 10:21
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by pko100 »

Thanks for your answer Ron, I dont need to use google as I know the answer to my question. I'm guessing that you don't know the answer to it, but still feel able to comment.

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

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

pko100 wrote: 17 Nov 2022, 23:58 Thanks for your answer Ron, I dont need to use google as I know the answer to my question. I'm guessing that you don't know the answer to it, but still feel able to comment.
So you know how much CAAM stuff has been acquired for the Type 31's. So what?

I feel you are struggling to make a point. If so, make it.

The discussion here is basically around the question of who paid for it. Was the the MoD directly or Babcocks? And what will happen with the T26 Batch 2's, will the MoD pay for it outside of the published contract, or not?

pko100
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 07 Feb 2020, 10:21
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by pko100 »

My point is very simple. I'm fed up of people making stuff up on this and most forums.

From open source material, the price of the Type 31 contract is a fixed price of £1.25m as Badcock were not prepared to accept pricing risk. The only other costs have been for 3 sets of mounting hardware for sonar 2070. Please feel to correct me.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

Looking at the above GFE discussion, it does seem to be trying to make mountains out of mole hill. From experience I know hoe GFE can cause problems for what should be straight forward contracts, in my case an aircraft engine upgrade programme. What I find interesting is how such a contract would be worded? Are the MoD held to account if things go south? People often lambast the MoD for its poor contract negotiations, but in this case wouldn't the Contractor also have to share some of the blame. Is it a case that the MoD holds a contractor over a barrel and says "Accept GFE or no contract", for example. It would also be interesting to see actually how much would have been saved where GFE is stipulated. I am sure GFE increases the risk level to the MoD so it cannot be ideal for the either, as well as possibly providing the Contractor with a "Get out of jail free card", if the programme runs into difficilty. Moving the topic for discussion into the realm of pros and cons of GFE would be interesting, especially if anyone is able to actually provide example on both counts.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
pko100Ron5

pko100
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 07 Feb 2020, 10:21
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by pko100 »

Thanks Jim, a useful post. Both sides limit the amount of GFX and it has to be to the benefiit of both sides. The discussion so far has circulated around the costs of the Type 26 and Type 31 programmes. Much equipment is purchased separately to the platform such as CAMM - common anti air modular missile with a common stockpile being shared with the army.

In considering the cost of the Type 26, I think you should only consider the marginal cost of building them as the planning assumption was also to produce a low risk solution having learnt the lesson of the number of new developments used on the Type 45. Hence it was always planned to use the Type 23 lifex as the baseline, buy additional equipment for the first three type 26 and cross deck equipment - sonar type 2150, 2087, radar 997, GWS35, DNA2 etc as type 26 batch 2 enter build and type 23s are decommissioned. Obviously the plan changed when the number of type 26 was reduced so I remain surprised that Thales radar and C2 systems were chosen rather than the re use of existing equipment. Perhaps it was thought that the integration risk would be significantly reduced and the solutiom would be more exportsble.

The current plan is for Babcock to handover the type 31 to the agreed baseline to the MoD and during the work up to FOC, the additional equipment such as GFE and relevant MTE to be installed. I hope this will include a full complement of SEACEPTOlR and a SSW. (NSM serms most likely if a system is bought brfore FC/ASM.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Lord Jim wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 15:51 Looking at the above GFE discussion, it does seem to be trying to make mountains out of mole hill. From experience I know hoe GFE can cause problems for what should be straight forward contracts, in my case an aircraft engine upgrade programme. What I find interesting is how such a contract would be worded? Are the MoD held to account if things go south? People often lambast the MoD for its poor contract negotiations, but in this case wouldn't the Contractor also have to share some of the blame. Is it a case that the MoD holds a contractor over a barrel and says "Accept GFE or no contract", for example. It would also be interesting to see actually how much would have been saved where GFE is stipulated. I am sure GFE increases the risk level to the MoD so it cannot be ideal for the either, as well as possibly providing the Contractor with a "Get out of jail free card", if the programme runs into difficilty. Moving the topic for discussion into the realm of pros and cons of GFE would be interesting, especially if anyone is able to actually provide example on both counts.
A good example of GFE going wrong is your favourite army programme Ajax and or that matter Warrior CSP. The 40mm CTA being GFE.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

With the CTA, if the contractor has been able to use the same ammunition handling system as used in the French Turrets, we may have had fewer problems. It is a shame as it is a world class weapon even if its ammunition is rather expensive. Mind you CVR(T) crews have always been conservative with ammunition usage, largely as a result of the system used by the Rarden cannon itself. Hopefully the procedures the Army uses with the CTA will be generally similar to the Rarden, being used more as a sniper that a spray and pry type weapon.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Lord Jim wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 22:44 With the CTA, if the contractor has been able to use the same ammunition handling system as used in the French Turrets, we may have had fewer problems. It is a shame as it is a world class weapon even if its ammunition is rather expensive.
It was LM who chose to change the ammunition feed.

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

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

pko100 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 15:33 My point is very simple. I'm fed up of people making stuff up on this and most forums.

From open source material, the price of the Type 31 contract is a fixed price of £1.25m as Badcock were not prepared to accept pricing risk. The only other costs have been for 3 sets of mounting hardware for sonar 2070. Please feel to correct me.
Good point, let's list it.
- SeaCeptor system ordered to MBDA, directly from HMG (not Babcock), including integration into CMS. Price not clear. (GFE)
- 2170 ship torpedo defense system ordered to Sea, directly from HMG (not Babcock). Price not clear. (GFE)
- Bofors guns are ordered by Babcock (not GFE)
- Thales is a member of team-T31, providing the CMS including the NS100 radar (guess not GFE)
But not many others are clear.

Independently, NAO report states clearly that Type-31 program cost is £2Bn, 65% increased from the original £1.25Bn (we all remember T31 RFI states £1.25Bn including all the GFE and initial support).

This is what is public now. But, I may miss something. Additions?
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 3):
Repulsepko100Ron5

pko100
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 07 Feb 2020, 10:21
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by pko100 »

Donald, thanks. I have not read the NAO report so dont know the rationale for the programme cost quoted. It is probably based on the approved cost in the Main or Full Business Case depending which approvals regime was in place at the time. This will include risk within costing,initial in service support a typical figure being 2 to 5 years per ship and other costs to mature the other DLODs.

So the point is yes, the approved programme could be £2b with cost changes deemed sensible by the NAO. The contract with Babcock remains £1.25b fixed price.

Lots of people seem to be suggesting that some dodgy dealing has been going on between MoD, Treasury and the NAO to obscure the costs on the Type 31. I don't believe this to be true in this case.

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

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

pko100 wrote: 19 Nov 2022, 10:15 Donald, thanks. I have not read the NAO report so dont know the rationale for the programme cost quoted. It is probably based on the approved cost in the Main or Full Business Case depending which approvals regime was in place at the time. This will include risk within costing,initial in service support a typical figure being 2 to 5 years per ship and other costs to mature the other DLODs.

So the point is yes, the approved programme could be £2b with cost changes deemed sensible by the NAO. The contract with Babcock remains £1.25b fixed price.

Lots of people seem to be suggesting that some dodgy dealing has been going on between MoD, Treasury and the NAO to obscure the costs on the Type 31. I don't believe this to be true in this case.
Thanks.

Total purchase cost: It is clearly stated in the NAO report that T31 program cost is £2Bn. So, that's it. Details are not known, as is the case with "£3.7Bn" of 3 T26s, or all the other programs. There is no number of T26, which can be equated with "£1.25b to Babock" on T31.

In summary, I understand the following two must be compared;
- "8 T26s for "£3.7+0.26+4.2 = £8.16Bn"
- "5 T31 for £2Bn"

Unit cost: First of all, let's define the "unit cost" as the "cost needed to add one more hull". Of course, this is different from "average cost", which includes initial cost divided by the hull number.

I understand "initial" cost of brand-new design ship is 2 unit-cost equivalent or more (see FREMM case on wiki), while that of T31 I have no good idea because there are already a good detailed design to build it, but changing the shipyard to Babcock Rosyth, as well as changing the boat alcove and armaments, sensors shall cost to some extent. Adopting RN compatible equipment shall also require some design and initial costs. But, for simplicity, let's assume it is 1 unit-cost equivalent.

Then
- T26's "unit cost" can be roughly estimated as £8.2/(2+8) = £820M (which is not much different from the £4.2Bn divided by 5 = £840M).
- T31's "unit cost" can be roughly estimated as £2/(1+5) = £330M.
Considering their size, capability, armament's scale, I think this number is not so bad. A T26 unit-cost being 2.5 times costy than a T31.

Operational cost: We shall note that T26 needs a crew size of "150+flight", and T31 needs "110+flight". If "flight" is 14, it is 164 vs 124. A T26 crew-size being 4/3 times larger than a T31. Hull size is also not much different, so the fuel cost shall be similar. Equipment maintenance cost shall be roughly proportional to the procurement cost (written elsewhere), so the "total" operation cost will differ a lot, but not as much as "x2.5".

These are my "personal" assessment based on public information.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
pko100wargame_insomniac

pko100
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 07 Feb 2020, 10:21
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by pko100 »

Thanks, I think your figures are in the correct ball park. A type 31 being around a third of the cost of the type 26.

I still think the type 26 is over priced given that the plan was always to drive the cost down by cross decking and re using equipment.

The separate value for money discussion is interesting as the type 31 can carry out most of the peacetime tasking except for the altantic asw mission. Peacetime tasking is assumed to cover at least 95% of the ships lifetime. I would still preferred that the full frigate programme was type 26s but this not funded.

The programme cost of the type 45 was a touch over £6b with development and other fixed cost around £2b. This equates to roughly 3 ships hence 3+6 for £6b. So your 8+2 for the type 26 feels about right.
These users liked the author pko100 for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

Post Reply