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

[WhitestElephant]

Does anyone have any idea how much S2087 costs?

I can only find this, but I am not sure how reliable it is: http://www.deagel.com/Ship-Sensors/Sona ... 54001.aspx

Six sets cost £340 million in 2001. Or £60-70 million a piece. Whats that in today's money? Could we, say, drop the 13th T26 to pay for 4 more 2087 sets and get 12 fully equipped T26?

[shark bait]

I'm still not convinced. To me, what it sounds like you are describing is a lack of frigates.

What are you calling the simple jobs?
anti piracy is not really a simple job, its a massive ocean filled with pirates in canoes with a 2 stroke outboard. That is a very difficult task. Like wise for drug smugglers.

For me if we need a 2 tier fleet it would have to be high end, and rock bottom. Mid ground corvettes are just poor, not cheap and not credible.
Again we already operate a suitable vessel. Cheap to build and operate.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... utters.pdf
I could advocate a couple of these operating the Caribbean, supporting local drug enforcement.

[sea_eagle]

Yet another dismal story of decline. I can understand when we had 4xT22 and 13xT23 frigates that the logical thing to do to cut costs was to drop an entire class hence the T22 were scrapped early. So by accident we are left with just 13 Type 23 frigates and the 'plan' now is to replace it with 13x Type26. I don't know any reasons why 13 frigates is what is actually needed? When the production line is running, at a rate of knots, I do hope we actually build 16 Type26 same as the original T23, before we sold 3 to Chile.

Interestingly with a crew size of of 185 if all T23 were manned the total complement would be 2400 while for the T26 with a smaller crew of 150 we could man 16xT26 for the same 2400. (While the 4xT22 with 250 crew needed a total of another 1000.)

[shark bait]

Does anyone have any idea how much S2087 costs?

I can only find this, but I am not sure how reliable it is: http://www.deagel.com/Ship-Sensors/Sona ... 54001.aspx

Six sets cost £340 million in 2001. Or £60-70 million a piece. Whats that in today's money? Could we, say, drop the 13th T26 to pay for 4 more 2087 sets and get 12 fully equipped T26?

by those figures it would be about £100 each to purchase. Although I imagine the operational costs will match the implementation costs. They are not cheap pieces of kit by any means

[shark bait]

Interestingly with a crew size of of 185 if all T23 were manned the total complement would be 2400 while for the T26 with a smaller crew of 150 we could man 16xT26 for the same 2400. (While the 4xT22 with 250 crew needed a total of another 1000.)

that is also one of my supporting arguments on buying a proper number. The through life costs dwarf the procurement costs of a vessel. Now I cant claim to know the MOD's books but it stands to reason if they are capable of funding 13 T23's, they should be more than capable of operating 12 T26's, which should have lower operating costs. As far as i see it there is little excuse for no like for like replacement, or even a small grown in numbers.

However im not holding my breath, I know the world doesn't work quite so logically.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Dear Shark Bait

> For me if we need a 2 tier fleet it would have to be high end, and rock bottom. Mid ground corvettes are just poor, not cheap and not credible.

I agree to this point. OPVs (like Rivers) and IPVs (like Damen 4007s, i.e. your cutters) are the right things to go for anti-piracy and/or anti-smugglers operation, IMO. For example, Amazonas class OPV was originally about GBP 150M for 3 ships (when ordered from T&T), that is GBP 50M each. Thus, it is ~7 times cheaper than a GP T26s. Also, River B.2's crew of 36 is 4 times less than GP T26s.

#note: River B.2 is quite expensive, and I suppose it may include TOBA cost.

And, Rivers can do most of the "non-fighting jobs", of which Frigates and Destroyers are doing currently. Actually, since their sea going days are much (typically 240 days vs 180 days, ratio of 4/3) longer than those of the escorts, it is much efficient. Low crew number, smaller hull, and lack of hi-tech sensors will limit some of the capabilities. But, they can exist in the theater more frequently, because of its cheapness and high operational efficiency.

Please note that I am NOT saying to reduce the number of T26s. I am just saying it will be better to make all the T26s equipped with S2087. In addition, I am a bit pessimistic about 13 hull purchase. Thus, in reality I am thinking this way: IF the cost permits, for example, only 8 ASW + 3 GP T26s, I prefer 10 ASW T26s + 3 (or 4) OPVs, possibly with the same cost and crew numbers. Additional 3 OPVs (with helicopter) or 4 OPVs (without) will relieve almost all escorts, tankers and Bay-classes from patrol duties, as Gabriele says.

The timing slot to introduce this "additional OPVs" will be either very near future (replace 3 T23s with 3 River B.2s) or in the T26s building era (replace 3 T23s not with T26s, but with new OPVs to be coupled with 3 River B.2s added around 2017-19).

[Pseudo]

If we were to keep the current River's and use the new ones in addition to them, would the original River's need replacing before the tenth T26 entered service or would they last until the programme had ended?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Dear Pseudo

Your last 3 T23 frigates were commissioned in 2000-2002. All three River B.1s were in 2003. Virtually no difference.
Thus, I think you can "slip in" River B.1 replacements to anywhere you want within the T26s production phase.

By the way, if RN is to reduce the hull number of T26s, for example from 13 to 10, I suggest to reduce the building rate at the same fraction, say 1/1.3. The first vessel commissioning in 2021 (or 23?) and the last one in 2036. This shall not be changed.

If not, TOBA. Even TOBA itself will be gone, the situation is NOT changing. By gapping the ship build order, you are risking the ship building capability in your country. Fast building looks "cheap" for the specified project, but is "expensive" in long therm if it means long vacancy of your factory.

[seaspear]

It would be a waste of resources to over capitalise on ships whose duties were only drug smugglers and piracy ,a number of small effective ships could patrol on various stations more effectively and cheaper than one expensive warship

[Oddball]

Not heard anything about any foreign sales.We need some to make the project affordable for the RN.

[jonas]

Not heard anything about any foreign sales.We need some to make the project affordable for the RN.

Whist it would be an obvious benefit to garner some export sales for T26, I'm sure the costing/affordability wasn't based on any income from foreign sales.Due to the lengthy production timescale, I see no reason that these vessels cannot be afforded on a one for one basis. That is, given all the UK political parties seeming aversion to spending money on defence.
Still, we now just have to wait and see what (if anything) definitive comes out of the SDSR. Will it be based on what the forces actually need, or what the treasury says we can afford. I think we all know the answer to that one.

[shark bait]

Not heard anything about any foreign sales.We need some to make the project affordable for the RN.

If the UK government doesn't look confident about its own project , why would another party want to buy into it.

If there is any hope in getting export partners they need to place a strong order and show some confidence in the project. I did a little count up a while ago and worked out around 40 frigates from suitable nations will need replacing within the T26 procurement cycle so there is some big potential to recoup some of the costs.
That being said 13 ships will give access to significant ecoomies of scale so it can be affprdab by our self.

[Oddball]

If the UK government doesn't look confident about its own project , why would another party want to buy into it.

Exactly,all this dithering isn't doing anybody any good.I'm hoping that now we've got a non coalition Government things will be better but given that the tories wouldn't Guarantee spending 2% of GDP then i'm not over confident of getting 13 T26.

[jonas]

I wouldn't exactly call it dithering, perhaps more caution is needed in planning and funding after the T45 (fitted for but not with numerous items), and the QE where poor initial planning and contracts that BAE had made completely watertight, made costs spiral.

If the MOD/BAE can agree to a contract where both are happy (and the treasury), then a few months delay will be a small price to pay. I have also asked before and no one seems to know. It was stated that first steel would be cut in 2016, does anyone have any idea whether the so called 'frigate factory' at Scotstoun has even yet been given planning permission, never mind build being started.

I do realise that build could start without this complex being ready, but that would be less than ideal. Also this letter from the DefSec in regards to final configuration of T26, has appeared on other blogs,but not yet on here, so for people who have not yet seen it :-

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... t_Ship.pdf

[RetroSicotte]

That watertight contract is, ironically, the only reason we have those carriers still.

George Osborne has been on record saying he'd have cancelled them if he could have.

[jonas]

That watertight contract is, ironically, the only reason we have those carriers still.

George Osborne has been on record saying he'd have cancelled them if he could have.

Yes I am aware that BAE made it more expensive to cancel than to carry on with the second build. That was my point, that they ran rings round the MOD on the contract in the first place, so I'm hoping by these lengthy negotiations on T26 they don't pull some similar stunt.
One other reason we are getting both carriers, is the controversial 'U' turn back to the 'B'. If we had carried on and converted QE to cat and traps, it was stated the cost would have meant POW sold or mothballed.
Whether or not that was the real reason I doubt we will ever find out.

[Pseudo]

That watertight contract is, ironically, the only reason we have those carriers still.

George Osborne has been on record saying he'd have cancelled them if he could have.

Yes I am aware that BAE made it more expensive to cancel than to carry on with the second build. That was my point, that they ran rings round the MOD on the contract in the first place, so I'm hoping by these lengthy negotiations on T26 they don't pull some similar stunt.
One other reason we are getting both carriers, is the controversial 'U' turn back to the 'B'. If we had carried on and converted QE to cat and traps, it was stated the cost would have meant POW sold or mothballed.
Whether or not that was the real reason I doubt we will ever find out.

I'm probably wrong, but I'd always half thought that the contract was intentionally made all but unbreakable to prevent a future government from cancelling the project. Which admittedly would demonstrate an unusual level of competence from MoD procurement.

[Pymes75]

I'm probably wrong, but I'd always half thought that the contract was intentionally made all but unbreakable to prevent a future government from cancelling the project. Which admittedly would demonstrate an unusual level of competence from MoD procurement.

IIRC, it was all part of Labour's Defence Industrial Strategy. BAe and VT would accept consolidation of naval shipbuilding in return for a cast iron contract to build two massive carriers. As you say, without it the Tories would have cancelled them as, like all good accountants, they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing!

[jonas]

That watertight contract is, ironically, the only reason we have those carriers still.

George Osborne has been on record saying he'd have cancelled them if he could have.

Yes I am aware that BAE made it more expensive to cancel than to carry on with the second build. That was my point, that they ran rings round the MOD on the contract in the first place, so I'm hoping by these lengthy negotiations on T26 they don't pull some similar stunt.
One other reason we are getting both carriers, is the controversial 'U' turn back to the 'B'. If we had carried on and converted QE to cat and traps, it was stated the cost would have meant POW sold or mothballed.
Whether or not that was the real reason I doubt we will ever find out.

I'm probably wrong, but I'd always half thought that the contract was intentionally made all but unbreakable to prevent a future government from cancelling the project. Which admittedly would demonstrate an unusual level of competence from MoD procurement.

Yes, the level of competence was so unusual as to be unbelievable.

[jonas]

I'm probably wrong, but I'd always half thought that the contract was intentionally made all but unbreakable to prevent a future government from cancelling the project. Which admittedly would demonstrate an unusual level of competence from MoD procurement.

IIRC, it was all part of Labour's Defence Industrial Strategy. BAe and VT would accept consolidation of naval shipbuilding in return for a cast iron contract to build two massive carriers. As you say, without it the Tories would have cancelled them as, like all good accountants, they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing!

The carrier contract was indeed one of the conditions that lead to the signing of the merger, the main carrot however was the TOBA which in any case guaranteed BAE a 15yr contract to build/repair at a cost of £230m per year. No doubt they would have got this money even if they had done jack all.
Much like the only reason we are getting three new rivers, otherwise BAE was guaranteed the money whether they were built or not.

Like all good accountants, the Tories have at least brought some sort of fiscal discipline into the MOD and seem to be putting it on a sound footing. Unlike the previous administration who's profligacy still haunts them to this day, as recent events have proven.

[Pseudo]

Like all good accountants, the Tories have at least brought some sort of fiscal discipline into the MOD and seem to be putting it on a sound footing. Unlike the previous administration who's profligacy still haunts them to this day, as recent events have proven.

I don't think this thread is for political discussion, but I'll happily debate the relative profligacy of a debt-to-GDP ratio of 37% in 2008 compared to the 42% ratio inherited in 1997 and an average deficit of 1.3% of GDP from 1997-2007 compared to 3.2% of GDP between 1979 and 1997 in the political discussion section.

[jonas]

Like all good accountants, the Tories have at least brought some sort of fiscal discipline into the MOD and seem to be putting it on a sound footing. Unlike the previous administration who's profligacy still haunts them to this day, as recent events have proven.

I don't think this thread is for political discussion, but I'll happily debate the relative profligacy of a debt-to-GDP ratio of 37% in 2008 compared to the 42% ratio inherited in 1997 and an average deficit of 1.3% of GDP from 1997-2007 compared to 3.2% of GDP between 1979 and 1997 in the political discussion section.

You are of course quite right, this is not the thread for political discussion, and having read your posts in the political discussion section neither is that.
In particular your reply to the quiz on page one of said thread,but also the rest of your posts,make it quite plain that it would be an exercise in futility.
Perhaps someone else might like to engage you in what would be a never ending story.

[Pseudo]

Like all good accountants, the Tories have at least brought some sort of fiscal discipline into the MOD and seem to be putting it on a sound footing. Unlike the previous administration who's profligacy still haunts them to this day, as recent events have proven.

I don't think this thread is for political discussion, but I'll happily debate the relative profligacy of a debt-to-GDP ratio of 37% in 2008 compared to the 42% ratio inherited in 1997 and an average deficit of 1.3% of GDP from 1997-2007 compared to 3.2% of GDP between 1979 and 1997 in the political discussion section.

You are of course quite right, this is not the thread for political discussion, and having read your posts in the political discussion section neither is that.
In particular your reply to the quiz on page one of said thread,but also the rest of your posts,make it quite plain that it would be an exercise in futility.
Perhaps someone else might like to engage you in what would be a never ending story.

Okey dokey, then. If you're unwilling or unable to defend your own rhetoric no one can force you to.

[RetroSicotte]

Guys, chill.

[jonas]

Guys, chill.

Chilled