Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Caribbean]

Lack of industrial capacity at BEA isn't a problem when it comes to more T26s, they were originaly meant to build 13 in the same time frame. The build proses has only been slowed down to 1 every 24 months due to lack of money for more.

Didn't that involve building the "frigate factory"? I'm pretty sure a 12-month build rate required that (and I'm not sure that I would have believed it, but maybe it was achievable).
However, lets take the 16-month build schedule and assume that BAE can get the first frigate commissioned within 5 years of cutting steel (it took that long for the T23 and 6 years for the T45). The first T26 would be commissioned in 2023, as Argyll decommissions, with each subsequent one arriving 16 months later. Unfortunately one T23 will be leaving service every 12 months. By the time the last T23 leaves service, we would just be launching the 9th T26. That takes us to 2035. The first T45s OSD is 2039, so by 2033-2034, BAE should be cutting steel for the first T45 replacement, with the second starting in 2035-2036. Nine T26 would be the limit and would involve BAE finishing one line while working on the first of class of another. I accept that if the T45 replacement is based on a T26 derivative production might flow seamlessly from one to the other, but I'm not sure that I would want to rely on that.
Had we started from where we should have started, (2015 or earlier, frigate factory, cheaper design etc etc) everything was achievable, however we are starting from where we are now, so it's not and BAE really don't have the capacity.

[Repulse]

Agree on the frigate factory to get real volume, but a frigate/destroyer factory could still be the answer in the medium term, the RN should be aiming again up to 30 real warships. However, in the short term, to say that BAE could only get 9 T26s built before the T26 replacement is bollocks

[donald_of_tokyo]

I also think BAES can relatively easily build 10 hull by 2036. It is ONLY the budget which is limiting T26 number, non-related to BAE capacity.

1: For example, BAES built T45 in 1 year drum beat.

2: Also, (partly just for fun/share) the "18 months drum beat" idea is meaning "intentional delaying" the build process.

From BMT's document, "Flexible Design as an Acquisition Opportunity" (Johnson & Wakeling, May 2017), the learning curve was shown below. We can see, from hull-1 to 3, "productivity" improves by 15%. But also from hull 3 to 10, "productivity" improves by further 15%. (From hull-1 to 10, improvement is 28% (=0.85*0.85). So when hull-10 is built in "18 months drum beat", 15% of the labors are free.

3: Also on the T45 replacements, "seamless" continuity is just normal world wide. French is starting FTI building before the final FREDA comes in. Of course the 1st FTI may need more time (and cost) to build than the later hulls, but it seamless shifting is planned.

* I like the BMT way of presentation. It is always logical, and easy to understand. Actually, this "red curve" is the "incremental acquisition" concept, to make the 1st ship significantly simple (by ~15%), and gradually adding capability later to make the build cost flatter. Simple.

スクリーンショット 2018-02-13 12.06.40.png

[ArmChairCivvy]

Lack of industrial capacity at BEA isn't a problem when it comes to more T26s, they were originaly meant to build 13 in the same time frame. The build proses has only been slowed down to 1 every 24 months due to lack of money for more.
If I remember right ( don't quote me on this ) I saw last year some time that BEA said they could build the T26 at a rate of 1 per year if needed,

In-between the investments to set up the "frigate factory" were mostly binned.

From what Iv read the T26 hasn't got the top side margins to allow a radar setup such as sampsons

Do you remember where/ by whom that statement was made?

[Jake1992]

From what Iv read the T26 hasn't got the top side margins to allow a radar setup such as sampsons

Do you remember where/ by whom that statement was made?[/quote]

I saw it when reading the comment section on a UKDJ peice, one commenter asked why Sampson wasn't used on the T26 to give them greater flexiblity to which another reply with a link stating that there's wasn't enough top side margins for it.

Now I'm not sure if this is truely accurate as I havnt been able to find any info on T26 and sampsons since, but if it is indeed true the surely that would rule out the T26 hull as the T45 replacement

[ArmChairCivvy]

Interesting, as the newer class is only 2 and a half meters shorter and a third of a meter less in beam
... we can always do a "t-42" and add a section

More difficult to do "a Burke" as they got their bath tub shape so that, as platforms with the high-up and massive AEGIS, they would be stable enough.

[Jake1992]

Interesting, as the newer class is only 2 and a half meters shorter and a third of a meter less in beam
... we can always do a "t-42" and add a section

More difficult to do "a Burke" as they got their bath tub shape so that, as platforms with the high-up and massive AEGIS, they would be stable enough.

Personal I'd like to see a T45 batch 2 ( same way as the T42 and T22 ) the T45 is an excellent design and beside its engine problems the only thing I can see that would need changing for a replacement would be a small plug to allow space for extra VLSs say 88 over all instead of 64 that there's space for on the current batch, and maybe extra space below the flight deck to allow a row array if ever required.

[andrew98]

I'd like, if the money fairies are in a good mood.....
front silo ftr 96 cell but with 48, and rear silo ftr 32-48 but with 16. All mk41 strike length. Double merlin hangar and good hms and tas/vds.
Then reclassify as a cruiser!

[Caribbean]

@Donald-san, @Repulse - apologies for the delay in responding - I still have a day job and occasionally they want me to earn my keep

However, in the short term, to say that BAE could only get 9 T26s built before the T26 replacement is bollocks

You are assuming that they still have the same capacity as when they built T23 and T45. I keep seeing comments about job losses and reductions in apprentice training, so I'm not sure that they still have the same capabilities as before. You stated the 16-month drumbeat as believable - the arithmetic shows that only nine hulls are possible in that time frame (@Donald-san says ten - see below)

he "18 months drum beat" idea is meaning "intentional delaying"

Obviously anything less than maximum speed of construction could be construed as intentional delay.

So when hull-10 is built in "18 months drum beat", 15% of the labors are free.

No - the other way around - you get lower productivity when building the first hulls - not "free" labour at the end. Your workforce will be sized to get ships in the water every x months after the initial build issues have been ironed out. That's why it takes 5 to 6 years to get the first one into commission, because your productivity is lower at the beginning and you have to start multiple hulls in parallel build. It actually takes 2-3 years to build each ship - you only deliver them on an x-month drumbeat.

"seamless" continuity is just normal world wide.

I wouldn't call an unrealised plan for the future an example of "normal worldwide". But, as I said, it may happen. Not sure if BAE have even managed that without outside assistance.

"incremental acquisition" concept, to make the 1st ship significantly simple (by ~15%)

That's what I was talking about when I wrote about "spiral development" for the T31 about 6 months ago. Start with a "light" version, then "light plus" etc, etc. Doesn't apply to the T26, though, since all will be built to the same specification.

I also think BAES can relatively easily build 10 hull by 2036

Indeed - it could be possible - block building allows more hulls to be built in parallel, so possibly an additional hull could be accommodated once the T45 replacement starts, if there was money to build it. Capacity might get us ten hulls, money only gets us nine. In either situation, there is no capability (industrial or financial) to build thirteen hulls. Stopping at eight allows us the money for the quick build option and allows BAE, in the fullness of time, to concentrate on the T45 replacement (hopefully we get 8 this time), to go with 8 T26 and a large number of T31 frigates and their derivatives.

what I think is that the next two class of escort ships i.e type 26 & 31 will be built and that the UK needs to just make the best of a bad job and look forward to what next in the form of the type 45 replacement and try to get it right

I agree with that - we are where we are. No amount of "coulda, shoulda, woulda" changes that. Let's see if we can fix it in future

[donald_of_tokyo]

So when hull-10 is built in "18 months drum beat", 15% of the labors are free.

No - the other way around - you get lower productivity when building the first hulls - not "free" labour at the end.

I don't agree. My personal experience as an engineer and also the BMT paper states so.
You can do your job faster, with training curve. As labors are moving from one task to the other, following the detail procedure document, faster means shorter time, and in turn you can build it more faster.

As quoted, learning curve is "steeper" in hull1, but still it continues to get better after hull 2, or even hull 7.

In either situation, there is no capability (industrial or financial) to build thirteen hulls.

Omission of the frigate factory and cutting work force was coupled with inability for 13 build. In other words, it is totally a matter of cost. Thus, BAE can build 13 as a capability and only the cost makes it 8 (or 9 / 10). This is what I meant.

[Tempest414]

However if the plan changes again now and hulls 9 & 10 were added there price will go up and maybe that of the other 8 as well as BAE would have to re-plan there program so on and so on look what happened with the carriers remember the ramp no ramp and ramp again and the cost of that. Anything can be done if money is chucked at it

[ArmChairCivvy]

... we can always do a "t-42" and add a section

+

the only thing I can see that would need changing for a replacement would be a small plug to allow space for extra VLSs

+

Then reclassify as a cruiser!

agree with["] that["] - we are where we are. No amount of "coulda, shoulda, woulda" changes that. Let's see if we can fix it in future

[inch]

When do we find out if canada and australia have chosen. T26 design and which country is first in deciding folks ? Cheers

[Antipod]

Here's an interesting paper from BMT and RR about pump jets on a frigate: great for high speed quietness and efficiency, not so good for low speed efficiency. Dates back about a decade, a time when the aspiration was for a fleet of excellent escorts rather than a desperate scramble to maintain hull numbers...

https://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6097875/ ... -May10.pdf

[Antipod]

On an unrelated note, a little upthread lies a debate about the various merits of ASROC, ship-launched lightweight torpedoes and a reliance on helicopter-launched weapons. Given the general consensus that lightweight torpedoes are marginally effective (ie, better than nothing, but not ideal), I wonder if there is any precedent for launching a heavyweight torpedo like Spearfish from a surface vessel, as either an ASW or ASuW?

[ArmChairCivvy]

pump jets on a frigate:

Popular with coastal navies (Sweden, Finland, the Gulf - loadsa shallows), but then again corvette size suites them most of the time.

[NickC]

The new Italian 132.5 m PPA class frigates, 7 ordered with first metal cut last October, delivery in 2021, follow-on deliveries 2022, 2023, 2024 (2), 2025 and 2026, include two stern launchers for HWTs as does one of the Damen designs, would be interested to know if included in their bid for the CSC contract with Alion, sure there are other examples of frigates with HWTs.

Its embarrassing to compare the Type 26 to the PPA both in numbers, delivery time scale and ASW firepower, T26 ASW firepower non-existant if Merlin down for any reason.

[shark bait]

A carrier will have at least 5 Merlin on board, a helicopter will be available, with a much greater hit probability than any hull mounted torpedo.

[NickC]

A carrier will have at least 5 Merlin on board, a helicopter will be available, with a much greater hit probability than any hull mounted torpedo.

The PK of HWT would be much, much higher than a LWT, only advantage of the LWT if launched from Merlin would be nearer target, disadvantage its said that Russian submarines can operate at depths no LWT can reach. You still have the problem with Type 26 if say escorting Tide tanker to re-supply carrier outside range of its Merlins and the T26 single Merlin down it has zero firepower to stop attack.

[RetroSicotte]

The wonderful thing about submarines is that engaging them is not a game of "Okay guys, there's a sub going to attack us in this location at this time."

They tend to surprise people.

The time to engage of "Fire torpedo/ASROC at sonar location" once sudden contact is made is a hell of a lot less than launching a helo from scratch, or (if its already in the air) awaiting a helo to arrive on station, or go through all the issues of trying to send out information to the helo on where it is and where to target when the Royal Navy's helicopters don't have datalinks.

It is hideously impractical to assume all those assets will be in place to engage instantly, as opposed to a weapon system sitting ready on deck to engage on top of the helo being ready to chase.

There is no "its our doctrine" to it. It's 100% just "we are trying to cut every corner to save costs".

[abc123]

The wonderful thing about submarines is that engaging them is not a game of "Okay guys, there's a sub going to attack us in this location at this time."

They tend to surprise people.

The time to engage of "Fire torpedo/ASROC at sonar location" once sudden contact is made is a hell of a lot less than launching a helo from scratch, or (if its already in the air) awaiting a helo to arrive on station, or go through all the issues of trying to send out information to the helo on where it is and where to target when the Royal Navy's helicopters don't have datalinks.

It is hideously impractical to assume all those assets will be in place to engage instantly, as opposed to a weapon system sitting ready on deck to engage on top of the helo being ready to chase.

There is no "its our doctrine" to it. It's 100% just "we are trying to cut every corner to save costs".

Exactly.
Man would expect that RN that couldn't deal with two half-broken Argentinian submarines back in 1982 when RN was on peak of it's ASW-mode would appreciate things like ASROC if not plain torpedos.

[shark bait]

ASW is sometimes referred to as Awfully Slow Warfare, that comes from cold war open ocean sub hunting, where an engagement could last a couple of days. A carrier out in the open ocean is very unlikely to be surprised, and required to respond in a instant.

Of course those cold war chases didn't happen in a busy sea lane, or a complex littoral environment. Here a skillful sub commander will have the upper hand, so the best thing the fleet commander can do is stay away. If operating there is absolutely necessary the only way to counter is intensive ASW helicopter operations.

[Caribbean]

Remind me again, how many submarines did we sink with torpedos in 82? I know we "sunk" three whales (IIRC we had to apply retrospectively to the IWC for a whaling quota). Early on, Santa Fe was damaged by two depth charges (dropped from a helicopter), an AS-12 (helicopter?) and strafed (By a helicopter) and was missed by a torpedo (also helicopter), forcing her to beach. After that, we used approximately 200 more depth charges and torpedos and hit nothing. San Luis didn't fare much better, allegedly scoring one whale, a torpedo decoy (maybe) and a lot of malfunctions (not all down to the "torpedo-polisher", by the way). However, had their equipment been in working condition, they may well have claimed another couple of frigates (I don't give the aircraft carrier attack much credence)
Conqueror, of course fired three and hit with three (one missed the Belgrano but, more by luck than design, hit Brouchard, without detonating, leaving a large dent in her hull).
What I take away from all that is that torpedos are a great weapon for submarines - for surface ships, not so much

[NickC]

US who are definitely the most open, info/quotes from the DOD DOT&E report on 2017 testing their MK 54 Lightweight Torpedo, no reason to expect any other LWT has not similar operational limitations, not an easy task to build an effective LWT, as highlighted by Falklands experience.

MK 54 Lightweight Torpedo for use on ASW helicopters, ASROC and P-8A with the High-Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapons Capability (HAAWC) program.

The MK 54 combines the advanced sonar transceiver of the MK 50 torpedo with the legacy warhead and propulsion system of the older MK 46. The MK 54 Block Upgrade (BU) was a software upgrade to the MK 54 baseline torpedo designed to provide a small, shallow draft target capability and to correct deficiencies identified in 2004. Now moved on to the MK 54 Mod 1 development began in '07 and in-water developmental testing in November 2015, scheduled to begin OT&E in 2020. The MK 54 Mod 1 hardware upgrades the torpedo’s sonar array from 52 to 112 elements, providing higher resolution. Associated software upgrades are designed to exploit these features to improve target detection, enhance false target rejection, and correct previously identified deficiencies.

Testing is behind schedule, test plan calls for shooting 84 MK 54 Mod 1 torpedoes in 6 separate test events covering both deep and shallow-water scenarios, only shot 43 torpedoes

Four of nine planned shallow-water test events in December 2016, halted testing due to poor weather.

The six events delayed from April 2017 in June 2017. During the test, the Navy did not recover one test torpedo.

In August 2017, the Navy intended to conduct a Surface Weapons Test (SWT) to test the MK 54 safety, arming device fuzing, and warhead reliability. Due to a series of target acoustic source failures, canceled.

Conducted most developmental testing using simple scenarios where the MK 54 previously demonstrated satisfactory performance. These simple developmental test scenarios are good regression testing that yield significant recorded test data; however, little data were obtained to assess MK 54 performance in challenging, operationally realistic scenarios.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... 17mk54.pdf

[abc123]

Remind me again, how many submarines did we sink with torpedos in 82? I know we "sunk" three whales (IIRC we had to apply retrospectively to the IWC for a whaling quota). Early on, Santa Fe was damaged by two depth charges (dropped from a helicopter), an AS-12 (helicopter?) and strafed (By a helicopter) and was missed by a torpedo (also helicopter), forcing her to beach. After that, we used approximately 200 more depth charges and torpedos and hit nothing. San Luis didn't fare much better, allegedly scoring one whale, a torpedo decoy (maybe) and a lot of malfunctions (not all down to the "torpedo-polisher", by the way). However, had their equipment been in working condition, they may well have claimed another couple of frigates (I don't give the aircraft carrier attack much credence)
Conqueror, of course fired three and hit with three (one missed the Belgrano but, more by luck than design, hit Brouchard, without detonating, leaving a large dent in her hull).
What I take away from all that is that torpedos are a great weapon for submarines - for surface ships, not so much

Never mind that, let's see this example: so, you have a car that breaks down oftenly, but you had say no problems with tires. So, you will put out of trunk a spare tyre and tool to change her, because last time you had battery problems?