Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 15:08
SD67 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 10:23
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 Nov 2022, 22:13
If "design and initial costs" equates to 2 unit cost, then 8.1Bn divided by 2 + 8 gives you £810M.

That's it for me...
Donald-san

Pre maingate (ie pre2015) : 140 m
Demonstration Phase (ie design) : 850 m
Build batch 1 : 3.9 billion
Build Batch 2 : 4.2 billion

Program cost to date = 9090 = 1136/ ship
Build cost = 8100 = 1012 per ship
Of course the build cost is on a downward trajectory

The Long lead items thing is a red herring, that's about the timing of the cashflow.
The discussion was: how much would a 9th T26 cost?

@Tempest says it will be greater than one billion yet clearly states the build cost of ship 8 will be around 840 million (the value of the batch 2 contract divided by 5).

I can't make his math add up. Fixed costs are fixed costs and would not be repeated for a 9th ship. Another ship facility would not be built, another ship would not be designed, so why add them in? Money spent is money spent and can't be re-spent.

I give up (again). I've read nothing here to contradict @Donald-san's proposition that 3 T26s could be acquired for the cost of the entire 5 ship T32 class. I think that's a very reasonable statement to make.
In any case All these calculations have been thrown in the blender now that inflation is 10% plus and the USD has appreciated massively, though the Navy are surely better off than the RAF. Near dollar parity must be a nightmare given their ongoing love affair with the Boeing Airplane company

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Caribbean wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 17:19
Ron5 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 14:58 There is zero chance they will add TLAMs to the T31s
Quite. A relatively cheap, dual-use missile like NSM is far more in keeping with the "cheap and cheerful" ideal of a patrol/ presence
frigate.
Look I know type 31 will not see tomahawk but to be clear tomahawk Block V is around the same price as NSM

Also if all 7 SSN's were carrying tomahawk with only 65 held this would mean 9 each so 8 on a type 31 is not that far off

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 18:43
Caribbean wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 17:19
Ron5 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 14:58 There is zero chance they will add TLAMs to the T31s
Quite. A relatively cheap, dual-use missile like NSM is far more in keeping with the "cheap and cheerful" ideal of a patrol/ presence
frigate.
Look I know type 31 will not see tomahawk but to be clear tomahawk Block V is around the same price as NSM

Also if all 7 SSN's were carrying tomahawk with only 65 held this would mean 9 each so 8 on a type 31 is not that far off
I have wanted NSM for T31 as that seems to be a good match of ship's role and weapon.

However I am confued about the discussion of TLAM on T31. I did not think it was proposed fitting TLAM to existing 5*T31 Batch 1's as that would add extra costs and crew requirements to what was intended to a low cost global patrol escort. I beleive it was mentioned previously as a hypothetical alternative for T31 Batch 2 design on comparison to the rumoured possible T32.

(I say hypothetical because I felt that T32 were always something mentioned by Boris Johnson without an real substance - as far as I know no actual funds had yet been allocatd for the initial design and specifications of T32, and if we struggled to crew our existing escorts, then how would we suddenly be able to crew another 5 frigates? Whilst the rumoured 3% defence spending was possible, it meant that T32 COULD have happened in some form or another. But that possibility became even less likely following the recent upheaval of UK Tax and spending poicies. If under current National Audit Office paper we seem unlikely to be able to afford all current spending commitments without additional funding (that is now unlikly to happen) and thus any unfunded projects are even more unlikely to happen).

But that hypothetical T31 Batch 2 design mentioned previously was intended to give RN a cheap but potent anti-ship / land attack capability. The idea was that 3*T31 Batch 2 were built, based mainly on exisiting T31 design to keep costs down, but with addition of Tomahawk LAM to give a potent strike capability to either CSG, or more probably LRG.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 18:43 Look I know type 31 will not see tomahawk but to be clear tomahawk Block V is around the same price as NSM
Not sure. TLAM is in the (nearly) final phase of its mass production and also built in number. NSM production has just started. We need to see how it changes (after inflation correction). But, anyway, NSM is high-end and more complex than, say, Harpoon, and hence surely be expensive than Harpoon.

TLAM is a bit "special". It was NOT a cheap weapon. But, mass production made it so cheap now. (and therefore I think UK must order 200-400 of them now for T26, interim solution).
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
serge750

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 19:26
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 18:43
Caribbean wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 17:19
Ron5 wrote: 01 Dec 2022, 14:58 There is zero chance they will add TLAMs to the T31s
Quite. A relatively cheap, dual-use missile like NSM is far more in keeping with the "cheap and cheerful" ideal of a patrol/ presence
frigate.
Look I know type 31 will not see tomahawk but to be clear tomahawk Block V is around the same price as NSM

Also if all 7 SSN's were carrying tomahawk with only 65 held this would mean 9 each so 8 on a type 31 is not that far off
I have wanted NSM for T31 as that seems to be a good match of ship's role and weapon.

However I am confued about the discussion of TLAM on T31. I did not think it was proposed fitting TLAM to existing 5*T31 Batch 1's as that would add extra costs and crew requirements to what was intended to a low cost global patrol escort. I beleive it was mentioned previously as a hypothetical alternative for T31 Batch 2 design on comparison to the rumoured possible T32.

(I say hypothetical because I felt that T32 were always something mentioned by Boris Johnson without an real substance - as far as I know no actual funds had yet been allocatd for the initial design and specifications of T32, and if we struggled to crew our existing escorts, then how would we suddenly be able to crew another 5 frigates? Whilst the rumoured 3% defence spending was possible, it meant that T32 COULD have happened in some form or another. But that possibility became even less likely following the recent upheaval of UK Tax and spending poicies. If under current National Audit Office paper we seem unlikely to be able to afford all current spending commitments without additional funding (that is now unlikly to happen) and thus any unfunded projects are even more unlikely to happen).

But that hypothetical T31 Batch 2 design mentioned previously was intended to give RN a cheap but potent anti-ship / land attack capability. The idea was that 3*T31 Batch 2 were built, based mainly on exisiting T31 design to keep costs down, but with addition of Tomahawk LAM to give a potent strike capability to either CSG, or more probably LRG.
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin set out the rationale for T32 at a select committee meeting. The service heads were asked by MOD to put forward potential future procurement programmes to be included in the defence command paper\ future equipment plan.

It is desire of not just he Navy but the wider political community that there are more escorts therefore the Navy were going to put forward a request for a second batch, i.e. another 5, of T31.

As it was discussed internally before the submission it was decided that T31 Batch 2 wasn't sexy enough so it was renamed T32 and additional potential capabilities were 'painted' onto it to gain approval. T32 could fufil the following 'desires'; increase escort numbers, continue drumbeat of ship orders, could be better armed addressing the 'RN spikey-ness criticism', could act as mothership for autonomous craft covering MCM capability gap, the various capabilities could be modular hitting that current buzzword.

No definitive spec or requirement has been set but the submission was deemed favourable enough to be included in the DCP\EP. Navy has now got the initial funding to start the programme i.e. start drawing up requirements etc.

As can be seen by the BAE fantasy proposal they are keen to muscle in at least on the design element if not build as they have spare design capacity as T26 and it sister classes mature and T83 is way over the horizon. The smell of concept and assessment phase contracts in the air.

Any talk of 3xT31 B2 or TLAM or anything else is just forum 'supposition'. Partly fuelled by Admiral Radakin's suggestion that going forward Mk41 would be the Navy's standard VLS and that T31 could host it. Mk41 being seen as the standard both for RN interoperability and to boost MBDA sales to overseas Navies with Mk41 VLS.

The desire for Mk41 being tempered of course by the reality that the 6 pack 'Mushroom NG' CAMM launchers are being fitted to T26, T31 and T45 and no Mk41 compatible missiles are being purchased, not withstanding FCASW and sub launched TLAM.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 05:44 [Partly fuelled by Admiral Radakin's suggestion that going forward Mk41 would be the Navy's standard VLS and that T31 could host it.
Was the inclusion of Mk41 on the T31 predicated by the lack of interim AShM? Now that NSM will in all likelihood find its way onto the T31s will the Mk41 be quietly dropped?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

There are some things to be said over type 31's crew level when we look at the IH class which is a very good AAW frigate in a video some time back a ships commander said the ship could be operated by 100 crew however they found after going through FOST that they needed 118 in terms of fighting the ship with battle damage so given type 31 will need the same crew but is not as complex as the IH in terms of systems and weapons we should have room to add more weapons with out adding crew

As for the TLAM thing it was me thinking out of the box in terms of what could be done with say the future type 32 budget other than build type 32

I was looking at building 3 more type 31 with a 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM and 16 Mk-41 and then then upgrading the first five to this standard plus building 3 more River B2's with a 57 or 40mm , containerised UAV and 10 Hero 120

Others wanted 2 or 3 more type 26 which would be nice but would leave no money to upgrade the rest of the fleet

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Something else to consider….

If funds remain tight going forward could the T45’s OSD be pushed back for 8 to 10 years to delay the not insignificant cost of the T83 programme.

Govan/Scotstoun could be kept busy with the five T32s for around £300m to £400m per annum. A massive saving when compared to the likely £1.2bn per annum cost of the T83 programme.

The skilled BAE workforce would be retained and escort building would continue on the Clyde. The Royal Navy would continue to “grow” ticking all the relevant PR boxes. Rosyth would have to concentrate on export T31s and the MRSS.

A temptingly easy win for the bean counters and politicians alike.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoserge750

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Or simply sell the early type 26 to countries currently running hand me down type 22/23 and keep iterating new builds at the end.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Or develop a new AAW radar and upper works to fit on type 26 hull form remove the mission bay and add VLS's to give 80 and set a price of 900 million and move straight from type 26 No-8 to type 47 No-1

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

All three of those suggestions sound like reasonable options (to me, at least), so I'm sure none of them will come to pass

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 11:36 Or develop a new AAW radar and upper works to fit on type 26 hull form remove the mission bay and add VLS's to give 80 and set a price of 900 million and move straight from type 26 No-8 to type 47 No-1
Basically iterating the design then, Samson radar atop a new mast, a 57mm gun up front instead of the 155mm gun could get 6x8 vl cells in the front, camm on the roof at the back ect ect. Others have managed it with the design already without compromising the asw nature as seen in Canada and aus. In no other industry would they spend a clean fortune designing a new product from the ground up and then junking and moving on to another entirely new ground up design after a few years it’s like we are awash with cash. Not just specific to ships either.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 13:42
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 11:36 Or develop a new AAW radar and upper works to fit on type 26 hull form remove the mission bay and add VLS's to give 80 and set a price of 900 million and move straight from type 26 No-8 to type 47 No-1
Basically iterating the design then, Samson radar atop a new mast, a 57mm gun up front instead of the 155mm gun could get 6x8 vl cells in the front, camm on the roof at the back ect ect. Others have managed it with the design already without compromising the asw nature as seen in Canada and aus. In no other industry would they spend a clean fortune designing a new product from the ground up and then junking and moving on to another entirely new ground up design after a few years it’s like we are awash with cash. Not just specific to ships either.
I would go for a mid ship lengthen to allow the keeping of the mission bay as it’s always handy to have with the unknown in unmanned systems along with allowing better growth margins.
Strip away the rafting and other quieting measures and go for a cheaper noisier engine design as these are not needed for an AAW vessel.

I agree though a full on clean design is not the way, but then again we have to ask if we don’t go clean design what keeps the design team busy and skilled up.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 14:00
SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 13:42
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 11:36 Or develop a new AAW radar and upper works to fit on type 26 hull form remove the mission bay and add VLS's to give 80 and set a price of 900 million and move straight from type 26 No-8 to type 47 No-1
Basically iterating the design then, Samson radar atop a new mast, a 57mm gun up front instead of the 155mm gun could get 6x8 vl cells in the front, camm on the roof at the back ect ect. Others have managed it with the design already without compromising the asw nature as seen in Canada and aus. In no other industry would they spend a clean fortune designing a new product from the ground up and then junking and moving on to another entirely new ground up design after a few years it’s like we are awash with cash. Not just specific to ships either.
I would go for a mid ship lengthen to allow the keeping of the mission bay as it’s always handy to have with the unknown in unmanned systems along with allowing better growth margins.
Strip away the rafting and other quieting measures and go for a cheaper noisier engine design as these are not needed for an AAW vessel.

I agree though a full on clean design is not the way, but then again we have to ask if we don’t go clean design what keeps the design team busy and skilled up.
In some of the concepts I thought they were putting the camm missiles onto of the mission bay? Maybe not. Be interesting to see how much difference in practice such a thru mission bay makes compared to a traditional boat bays on either side.

I would not necessarily be increasing numbers simply selling off the earlier ones and replacing with modified ones hence keeping the asw configuration stable.. Defence isn’t getting a big boast in cash numbers will never be as large as people want.

Like any organisation they would be involved in the future design integration work. In general then you would perhaps move some to say a new sub design then on to a new support ship ect. It’s ensuring your maintain the certification knowledge that’s is important. By and large if you get the base design right they can be around for decades it is the productionisation that is the hardest thing to get right.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

If T83 design delays, T32 banned, and T45 needs to be life-extended, there are two independent problems.

1: how to keep the design team working?

I'm afraid that T83 delay and T32 banned simply means the design team will see degradation of capability. They can do concept design, but no detailed design.

2: how to keep the shipyards working?

There are BAES Clyde and Babockc Rosyth. With the foreseen budget restriction, there is zero hope to keep both yards as "escort builder". Simply impossible. Luckily, both T26 and T31 see some "foreign build export" success, to save the day to some extent. But, maintaining the build force is not easy.

- Sell 3 T26 batch1 to build 3 more Batch 3 T26? But not so hopeful. Lack of money is dictating here. But this is the ideal solution. Actually, this is what France did with its FREMM Normandie to be sold to Egypt, very cheap. UK can do the same if with strong will. But, not so many "T26 buyer" will be there.

- Another idea is to sell the 5 T31s, and build 2 or 3 batch3 T26 to save the day. I think this is also an ideal case. Number of escorts will decrease by 2 or 3, but capability does not. For example, if with 2 Batch3 T26, it will provide a fleet of 6x modified T45 AAW escort and 10x T26 ASW escorts. Looks "not bad" for me. This idea shall be supplemented by "3x enhanced OPVs", which could be built in Babcock Rosyth. (In short, this is a plan to replace 5 T31s with 2 T26 and 3 OPVs).

Of course, the OPVs shall never be high-end design because of cost. 1x 57mm, 2x 40mm, no CAMM, a Wildcat, 2 RHIBS and 1 active stern ramp for 2 12m-class USVs, with NS50 radar?

Selling the 5 T31 will be to, hmmm, how about
- 2 to Poland, to "speed up the Polish frigate program"
- 3 to NZ, to increase their frigate number from now 2 to 3, but with even less crew. (Te Kaha and Te Mana has 180 crew each = in total 360 including flight-team. 3 T31 will need 110+15 each = in total 375. No so different...)

Just the 4th idea...

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 16:09 Selling the 5 T31 will be to, hmmm,
Don’t forget Ukraine!
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 13:42
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 11:36 Or develop a new AAW radar and upper works to fit on type 26 hull form remove the mission bay and add VLS's to give 80 and set a price of 900 million and move straight from type 26 No-8 to type 47 No-1
Basically iterating the design then, Samson radar atop a new mast, a 57mm gun up front instead of the 155mm gun could get 6x8 vl cells in the front, camm on the roof at the back ect ect. Others have managed it with the design already without compromising the asw nature as seen in Canada and aus. In no other industry would they spend a clean fortune designing a new product from the ground up and then junking and moving on to another entirely new ground up design after a few years it’s like we are awash with cash. Not just specific to ships either.
If no ASW capability is required why not just build more T45s perhaps with a modified propulsion system to generate much more power for directed energy weapons?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 18:44
SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 13:42
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 11:36 Or develop a new AAW radar and upper works to fit on type 26 hull form remove the mission bay and add VLS's to give 80 and set a price of 900 million and move straight from type 26 No-8 to type 47 No-1
Basically iterating the design then, Samson radar atop a new mast, a 57mm gun up front instead of the 155mm gun could get 6x8 vl cells in the front, camm on the roof at the back ect ect. Others have managed it with the design already without compromising the asw nature as seen in Canada and aus. In no other industry would they spend a clean fortune designing a new product from the ground up and then junking and moving on to another entirely new ground up design after a few years it’s like we are awash with cash. Not just specific to ships either.
If no ASW capability is required why not just build more T45s perhaps with a modified propulsion system to generate much more power for directed energy weapons?
The type 26 is in production the type 45 is not. We should only have 1 high end escort type imo.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 18:57The type 26 is in production the type 45 is not. We should only have 1 high end escort type imo.
Ideally, yes but adapting the T26 won’t be cheap.

If the T83 is just a T45 with a next gen Sampson and extra VLS then it really should be T45 based. Clearly the propulsion setup has been a weakness but the issue is well understood and the rest of the hull has performed perfectly adequately plus it is slightly larger than the T26.

I don’t think RN has the resources to build 4 to 6 clean sheet 160m super-cruisers regardless of whether they are T26/T45 based or not. Considering the scale of the UK’s ambition it’s something that doesn’t need to be financed at the detriment of overall fleet balance,

Perfection must not be allowed to become the enemy of good enough. The days of gold plated bespoke vanity and legacy projects must be consigned to history.

Overall hull numbers are too low now for any more missteps.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 19:17
SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 18:57The type 26 is in production the type 45 is not. We should only have 1 high end escort type imo.
Ideally, yes but adapting the T26 won’t be cheap.

If the T83 is just a T45 with a next gen Sampson and extra VLS then it really should be T45 based. Clearly the propulsion setup has been a weakness but the issue is well understood and the rest of the hull has performed perfectly adequately plus it is slightly larger than the T26.

I don’t think RN has the resources to build 4 to 6 clean sheet 160m super-cruisers regardless of whether they are T26/T45 based or not. Considering the scale of the UK’s ambition it’s something that doesn’t need to be financed at the detriment of overall fleet balance,

Perfection must not be allowed to become the enemy of good enough. The days of gold plated bespoke vanity and legacy projects must be consigned to history.

Overall hull numbers are too low now for any more missteps.
The yard and suppliers are all tooled up for type 26 the cost of stopping that and going back to a design 20 years out of production would cost more.

I’m not sure there will be more than the 48 vls for aster. The cost of those missiles that go into the vls is only increasing and the ones for ballistic missile defence are in the millions each. Even 4 ships with 32 vls for aster in a task group is a lot of missiles in that category for the Uk in any conflict it is involved in. I would like to see aster qualified for mk41 sooner rather than later.

I think the camm missile it’s success and its future development will have a bigger baring on future missile fit.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

As 2023-2033 plan has zero commitment to T83 development activity, we need to consider several "plan-Bs" now.

Motivation
In the past, 2013, we all remember what happened when T26 start-of-build delayed for 3 years. No plan-B, and to keep the shipyard alive, RN was forced to order 5 River B2 OPVs. Brazilian Amazonas OPV and Al Khareef Corvette were the only two designs BAE owned the IP which are new enough, and small changes in Amazonas OPV will provide an OPV which meets RN standard, while large amount of rework was needed to make a Khareef Corvette into a large OPV meeting RN standard. Hence we saw 5 River OPVs to come.

What if we had a good "large OPV design" (modifying Khareef on to Dutch Holland class equivalent)? RN would have had, 4 River B1 OPVs, 3 Holland-level-OPV(H) (using the £0.65Bn for River B2 OPVs), no T31 (£2Bn freed), and 10 T26 (2 more hull with £1.7Bn) and £0.3Bn to either "upgrade all the 10 T26's radar kits", or "up-arm the 3 Holland-level-OPV(H) to a corvette level".

Prospects
BAES Clyde's T26 build will end around 2035 (for delivery of the 8th hull in 2036 to RN). If properly handled, T83 build shall start around 2034, for delivery to RN around 2038, at the latest case. Better be 1 year earlier. As designing (concept, rough and detail) will require at least 4 years, the design work must start on 2030 or 2029 with significant investments.

If the designing will start on 2034 (as no money within ten years), the first steel cut shall be 2039, 1st of hull delivery on 2044, into service on 2046. (or later). So, at least 5-years gap is foreseen.

I am NOT pessimistic here in any sense. Just being realistic. Thing will go better, or go worse. So, thinking of filling this 5 years gap, between 2034-2039 is MUST. It is not a fantasy fleet, not a pessimistic claim. Just clear and present tasks needed in UK.

Of course, some resource might be found in future (within 5 years or so) to start T83 design activity by 2029. But, betting ALL in such an optimistic standpoint is NOT a good way when talking about defense.
(continues...)
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 13:42
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 11:36 Or develop a new AAW radar and upper works to fit on type 26 hull form remove the mission bay and add VLS's to give 80 and set a price of 900 million and move straight from type 26 No-8 to type 47 No-1
Basically iterating the design then, Samson radar atop a new mast, a 57mm gun up front instead of the 155mm gun could get 6x8 vl cells in the front, camm on the roof at the back ect ect. Others have managed it with the design already without compromising the asw nature as seen in Canada and aus. In no other industry would they spend a clean fortune designing a new product from the ground up and then junking and moving on to another entirely new ground up design after a few years it’s like we are awash with cash. Not just specific to ships either.
For buy keeping every thing from the main deck down and redesigning the super-structure would allow enough detailed design work to keep the design department ticking over but keep the cost down with the plan to end up with a ship that has

A new fixed panel AAW radar system
1 x 57mm , 2 x 40 , 48 VLS up front , 32 VLS amidships , 8 x NSM

there is a lot that can be done to a River B2's to make it more like a Holland class like fit a 3d radar fit a 57mm , fit 2 x 30mm add a Camcopter S-300 capable of carrying 6 LMM. Could we take a Thales Rapid Ranger and make a 8 round SeaRanger for the RB2's

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Following on from SW1’s comments, I do agree that force levels are now such that having one tier one Escort class is really the only practical way forward. We will probably not all agree on my view that it will have to be highly capable in both ASW and AAW. To be efficient it will need to be a class size of 12+ hulls and a production run of at-least 20 years. Something ThinkDefence raised over a decade ago.

I would also argue that the same should be said for a tier two vessel. This needs to be also a multirole vessel to ensure it can cover as many of the war fighting roles that will be required outside of the tier ones. Also, a similar class size and production runs would be required.

With a new tier one or two design every say 15 years, this should keep a single design office productive and skilled.

Everything else needs to be based on a civilian or modified civilian design going forwards. The direction of the MRoSS and future MHC motherships suggest the RN is thinking the same.

To achieve this I would say the next design should be a tier two T32, meaning that as the new class gets rolled out the T31s are sold. Any work on a tier-one design will be late 2030s, so a follow on modified third batch of 4+ AAW T26s makes sense to replace the T45s.

Harsh perhaps, but actually it will enable the RN to emerge stronger with a more sustainable future than it has now with short term financial decisions and long term undeliverable dreaming.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The difference between the often referred to a tier 1 and 2 is really persistent and endurance and perhaps not quite as advanced sensor systems.

If we are going to persist with enduring east of suez presence and fwd deployed units in general I would have 8 ,10, 8. That being 8 type 26, 10 type 31 and 6 mcm patrol motherships (I would suggest selecting the Dutch/Belgium design for local build) with a focus on mcm and underwater unmanned system development.

At present a carrier has 2 type 45 and 2 type 23 assigned to it. In future if that is 4 type 26 say then even in the current RN configuration of 24 mk41 and 24 camm then a future group would have the equivalent of 2 type 45 worths of aster 30 vertical launch silos and 3 type 23s worth of camm. Add an additional 8 cell mk41 to the type 26 equivalent to configuration seen in Australia and Candida and you have almost the equivalent of 3 of each.

Obviously they do not all need to be surface to air missiles all of the time and configuration would be up to those leading it at the time. Maybe doing to aster what the US has done to sm6 would offer more options.

The carrier groups principle region of use would be equivalent to the U.S. 6th fleet for the foreseeable future.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Her is another way add 16 more A50 cells to Type 45 to give it 64 and have a carrier group of 1 Carrier , 1 T-45 for BMD 3 x T- 26

Post Reply