UK Defence Forum

Doesn't the cost also include a maintenance contract? so the published figure isn't really a unit price.

Have added River class data, ship names, etc to Page 1

shark bait wrote:Doesn't the cost also include a maintenance contract? so the published figure isn't really a unit price.

I don't think support and maintenance have ever been mentioned as part of the 348 million. Where did you hear that?

shark bait wrote:Doesn't the cost also include a maintenance contract? so the published figure isn't really a unit price.

The cost was because BAE had the government more over a barrel than usual. With the Indyref mere months away and the SNP poised to dive on any "order gap", BAE could name their price for these thing.

Jim on MP.net unearthed some emails of the SNP already dredging info from BAE and the shipyards to try and swarm in on it as last minute propaganda.

You'd have though BAE (who didn't want Yes to succeed) would have massively cut prices to use these are a "gift" to ensuring a steady nation, but allegedly their wallets came first.

Gabriele wrote:
I don't think support and maintenance have ever been mentioned as part of the 348 million. Where did you hear that?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 1282000034

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate (a) the total cost of the contract for the three offshore patrol vessels, (b) the unit cost of the vessels and (c) when each vessel will enter service. [175045]

Mr Dunne: Based on a firm price offer, and subject to main gate approval and contractual agreement, the cost of the contract for the three offshore patrol vessels, including initial spares and support, is expected to be £348 million. A unit cost for these vessels has not yet been calculated. On current plans, the contract will be signed in 2014, with the three vessels entering service between 2017 and 2018.

RetroSicotte wrote: The cost was because BAE had the government more over a barrel than usual. With the Indyref mere months away and the SNP poised to dive on any "order gap", BAE could name their price for these thing.

That and the taxpayer is contractually obliged to keep filling BAE's wallet, which is the most ridiculous contract ever (the law on aid spending comes a close second). Either way the £110m unit price is servilely warped.

shark bait wrote:

Gabriele wrote:
I don't think support and maintenance have ever been mentioned as part of the 348 million. Where did you hear that?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 1282000034

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate (a) the total cost of the contract for the three offshore patrol vessels, (b) the unit cost of the vessels and (c) when each vessel will enter service. [175045]

Mr Dunne: Based on a firm price offer, and subject to main gate approval and contractual agreement, the cost of the contract for the three offshore patrol vessels, including initial spares and support, is expected to be £348 million. A unit cost for these vessels has not yet been calculated. On current plans, the contract will be signed in 2014, with the three vessels entering service between 2017 and 2018.

Every ship's manufacture, i think, includes a minimum amount of "initial spares and support". It would have been completely different if it said it included, say, an X-years agreement for support costs, like the latest BAE contract for availability for the River Batch 1, worth 22 million for 5 years. http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_ ... seecyigi_4

In other words: i unfortunately don't think support is the answer to the ridiculous cost of the River batch 2, unless there's a 150 million support package for some 30 years or so included in... But i imagine they would say it, if there was.

Gabriele wrote:
Every ship's manufacture, i think, includes a minimum amount of "initial spares and support". It would have been completely different if it said it included, say, an X-years agreement for support costs, like the latest BAE contract for availability for the River Batch 1, worth 22 million for 5 years. http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_ ... seecyigi_4

In other words: i unfortunately don't think support is the answer to the ridiculous cost of the River batch 2, unless there's a 150 million support package for some 30 years or so included in... But i imagine they would say it, if there was.

yep, I think your right. In my head I remembered it being more but couldn't find a source now.
Unfortunately the politics have servilely warped the unit cost in this case. Almost all military procurement is about job creation as much as it is military capability, in this case more so than in most.

The spanish 2 new BAM OPV costs 232MDollar / unit in 2014 order. This amounts to GBP 140M/unit.

I know it is slightly larger (although 2600t FL is similar), has a hanger and a 3in gun. It may also have better CMS and link system (it DOES have link-11/22 but not link-16 to my knowledge).

Do anybody have any information if the River B.2 contract includes link-11/22? or SCOT?

for the patrol vessel the 76mm gun isn't an essential. But what the platform does allow is fitting of comprehensive C3I capability which for many of a patrol vessels jobs is more than useful both for civilian taskings and military taskings

how many agencies does the UK have deploying patrol vessels in home waters?

Royal Navy
UK Border Agency
Scottish Fisheries Protection

All deploying different vessels to do allot of similar jobs. Could some joined up thinking be applied?

Purchasing a common vessel being the most obvious leading to a longer production run and some lowering of costs. More joint crewing releasing manpower for other vessels/tasks?

marktigger wrote: Purchasing a common vessel being the most obvious leading to a longer production run and some lowering of costs. More joint crewing releasing manpower for other vessels/tasks?

I am afraid not.

1st of all, Scotland Fishery protection is a political issue, and cannot be considered for "effectiveness in theory".

<vessels>
UKBF will NOT operate River OPVs. They look like opting for smaller, cheeper solutions. HMC Protector (434t FL) is the largest vessels they have, bought from Spain(?), and other 4 are Damen 4207 design.

On the other hand, River OPVs looks like a just match to the operations they are tasked to, so it may not be replaced with either Damen 4207 or vessel like HMC Protector. Only chance is that RN may buy ~6 Damen 4207 as replacements for 16 Archer class. This is not so bad idea, to my opinion, but you need to think about URNU training duties to be handled with this small number.

<manpower>
RN could yes absorb UKBF. But BF is by its nature a police, not military. I think it is good to have a independent police on water for many reasons (mainly effectiveness, training and then promoted as a navy crew is much different from those of law enforcement tasks). Thus I do not agree this way.

BF can absorb RN's OPV force. But here, we are (at least I am) talking about replacing Caribbean and even Indian guard-ships (made of RFA vessels and escorts) with this OPVs. If within UKBF, they will not have white ensign, but blue ensign. Are you all happy with it? I am not.

Protector was bought from Finland

what if you had mixed agency crews, so border force people doing law enfocement, ministry of Ag and fish doing fisheries protection. And blancing the crews up when they deploy overseas.

marktigger wrote:Protector was bought from Finland

thanks

marktigger wrote: what if you had mixed agency crews, so border force people doing law enfocement, ministry of Ag and fish doing fisheries protection. And blancing the crews up when they deploy overseas.

It is reasonable. For example, Japanese 2 destroyers sent to Indian Ocean includes in total 8 coast guard crews for law enforcement. New Zealand's OPV crew includes 4 members from "government agencies". I am not surprised if the ~4 crews of the Rivers were to be sent from UKBF.

the enhanced role for the OPV's is why I feel they need an enhanced vessel the river II are good enough for UK EEZ protection (except in one important aspect numbers). But for the enhanced role we now want we need a different vessel!

marktigger wrote:the enhanced role for the OPV's is why I feel they need an enhanced vessel the river II are good enough for UK EEZ protection (except in one important aspect numbers). But for the enhanced role we now want we need a different vessel!

How are you going to make it cheap? I am just sticking to River B.2s simply because it has already been ordered, just make full use of them.

Or, you are in fact proposing to sacrifice (at least) a T26? (making the best (optimistic) estimate of 13 to 12?)

I would suggest not buying from BaE and buying from producers with proven track of delivery on time and on budget!

marktigger wrote:I would suggest not buying from BaE and buying from producers with proven track of delivery on time and on budget!

In this case, you can order them from Japan.

We are on time and on budget (simply because we are producing many OPVs for our own coast guard). Typical OPV of River class size amounts to 50-60M Dollars in Japan without military data-link nor CMS (we do have optronic FCS and a 30-35 mm canon) when ordered in large batch, as large as 10 units at once. Note that these vessels are NOT in military standard.

Let's assume it is 90M Dollars = 60 MGBP, with very simplest equipments, just as like as Rivers. I believe this is the cheapest solution you can find (you know Spanish BAM is 150 MGBP/unit in 2014). If you gonna order 6 of them in addition to what you have now, you will lose a T26 (only if the T26 were as cheap as the proposed cost of 350 MGBP/unit). But this is actually the cheapest solution. If you do the same with BAE yard, it will cost as much as 100 MGBP/unit, so you are right. I am sorry to say this but Japan's ship building industry is still competitive, which make building ships cost cheap, while UK is not.

However, however again, if you ever thinking to build your frigates/destroyers within your country, this is the cost you need to pay, I believe.

By the way, if you make your OPV more fighty, it will easily exceed 150 GBP/unit of BAM, meaning to lose more T26s.

# To say the truth, I think T26 will never be as cheap as 350 MGBP. It will be nearly 500 MGBP. You made it so hi-spec, and will not be able to afford 13 of them, resulting in say 8 or 10 at most. And then the unit cost will quickly rise, as Gabrielle mentioned...

most countries yards are less expensive than BAe at govan. Babcocks of appledore have a good track record of on time and on budget delivery

marktigger wrote:most countries yards are less expensive than BAe at govan. Babcocks of appledore have a good track record of on time and on budget delivery

They do, its a nice little yard, but it's fair to say their work is simpler than BAE's

Dear marktigger

Of course I am NOT proposing to build your OPVs in Japan. I am just saying "a bit higher price for ship building" is inevitable investment for UK. However, yes this "a bit" shall be around 20-30%, not twice as high.

Appledore is promising but does it have ability to design complex ships? (Echo was of their design?).

I have no answer but breeding two ship building sites (+1 for subs) with RN budget will not be so easy. Looking at Australia's and Canada's struggling, it looks like under-payed support for these industries will result in decease, i.e. rapid loosing in skill and sharp rise in procurement cost because of many short falls.

With 6+13 (or less) escorts, an escort built every 2 years will be the average (CVF replacement is 50 years away, so forget it). If you have 2 shipyards, it will mean 4 years per ship. I am afraid this is not enough for a yard. With LPDs, MARSs, Survey ships and maybe OPVs mixed, maybe you can find some solution, but anyway it will not be easy...

donald_of_tokyo wrote: # To say the truth, I think T26 will never be as cheap as 350 MGBP. It will be nearly 500 MGBP. You made it so hi-spec, and will not be able to afford 13 of them, resulting in say 8 or 10 at most. And then the unit cost will quickly rise, as Gabrielle mentioned...

I wouldn't be so sure of that. For the first time in uk naval ship building the product is being designed to a budget rather than a specification. All of the systems are already developed removing the risk element there and quite a lot is being transferred from other frigates. It is a low risk design so it does stand a chance of being complete on budget.

MCM fleet needs replacing soon thats 12-14 vessels

shark bait wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:

marktigger wrote: # To say the truth, I think T26 will never be as cheap as 350 MGBP. It will be nearly 500 MGBP. You made it so hi-spec, and will not be able to afford 13 of them, resulting in say 8 or 10 at most. And then the unit cost will quickly rise, as Gabrielle mentioned...

I wouldn't be so sure of that. For the first time in uk naval ship building the product is being designed to a budget rather than a specification. All of the systems are already developed removing the risk element there and quite a lot is being transferred from other frigates. It is a low risk design so it does stand a chance of being complete on budget.

This is the same BaE we're talking about?

marktigger wrote:
This is the same BaE we're talking about?

Indeed they don't have a great track record. Basing your views on type 45 and astute they look pretty bad, but they where much higher risk design's. MOD procurement is also at fault for not correctly noticing managing the risk.

This time round they seem to be doing things better, taking their time and using a very low risk design. I think of this lower risk design it stands a reasonable chance of becoming a success.