donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑03 Dec 2022, 05:34
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...)
If we wre starting with blank sheet of paper, I would have loved to see RN equivalent of Dutch Holland-class or even French Floréal-class - something in the region of 105-110m length (for operation of helicopters), 3,500-4,000 t displacement, 4-4.5m draught. i.e. somewhere in between the current T31 and River B2 in size. As a gobal patrol ship armed with 1*57mm cannon and 2*30-40mm secondary guns plus 12.7mm / 7.62mm GPMG. Like aforementioned Holland and Floréal classes these would have been ideal for patrolling British Overseas Territories maritme zones and assisting our allies in anti-piracy policing and patrolling global shipping lanes (e.g. Operation Kipion).
The most realistic way of achieving that would be to stretch the xisiting River B2 design by a further 15-20m length, fitting a hangar, and improving armanent and radar/sensors etc. That could free up the T31's to be likewise uparmed and improved radar and sonar so that they could act as actual Frigates, like the Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class upon which they were based.
Given the lack of fuding for the T32, I am leaning towards better equipping the hulls we already have rather than trying to squeeze in more escort hulls that we don't have the funds for or crew. I agree that we should nt be looking for any brand new escort designs - we are better off trying to amend existing designs that are already proven - an evolution of new batches. That reinforces what others have said previously that we can only afford one naval ship design bureau, hopffully with the best of both BAE and Babcock rather than trying to appease both.
And with the tightened Defence spending (as per the lastest NAO report) we are going to be able to keep two shipyards busy long term with just escort production, unless both Govan and Rosyth work on blocks. I would like to keep both BAE and Babcock going so that compettition keeps BAE on their toes, but can't see that we can afford it. It might have to be Rosyth that remains flexible, maybe building River Class batch 3's or MRSS, mayb building blocks for new escorts for Govan to do assembly and the more technically demanding work.
So maybe the answer in these times of both financial constraints and greater global and European stability is to go for low cost stretched Batch 3's:
- T26 Batch 3 stretched with extra VLS cells and improved radar for BAE
- River Batch 3 stretched with hellicopter hangar. improved armanent and radar/sensors etc for Babcock
(The former would be instead of costly new design for T83, while funding for the latter would be instead of any T32 ships).
The above is partly thinking about USN recent shipbuilding. When they have tried revolutionary changes in ship designs e.g. Gerald Ford carriers, Zumwalt destroyers and both designs of Littoral Combat Ships, it has been very costly with lots of teetching troubles. Yet when they have gone for more evolutionary imporovement with Batches bringing in improvments, e.g. Arleigh Burke DD, San Antonio LPD and even America LHA, they have fared far better.