Cost of FFBNW?

[abc123]

So, what's the cost of Fitted-for-but-not-with ships? If the fully equipped ship costs say 100 of something, how much would it cost if FFBNW?

[R686]

So, what's the cost of Fitted-for-but-not-with ships? If the fully equipped ship costs say 100 of something, how much would it cost if FFBNW?

How long is a peice of string?

FFBNW just means the vessels has space and weight margins for future growth, it's then up to the Mod or goverment if they actually wanted to spend the $ upgrading the vessel

The Anzac's were a classic case of FFBNW,

The modular Meko 200 design concept made it possible to configure the ANZAC design with sufficient weight and space allowance for future upgrades - the so-called 'fitted for but not with' philosophy. This attracted considerable criticism then and later, but was probably essential at the time to ensure that the RAN could order sufficient surface combatants with sufficient growth potential at an affordable price. In hindsight, it may have been a smarter move than posterity gives credit for.

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/C99 ... 50568C22C9

[abc123]

So, what's the cost of Fitted-for-but-not-with ships? If the fully equipped ship costs say 100 of something, how much would it cost if FFBNW?

How long is a peice of string?

FFBNW just means the vessels has space and weight margins for future growth, it's then up to the Mod or goverment if they actually wanted to spend the $ upgrading the vessel

The Anzac's were a classic case of FFBNW,

The modular Meko 200 design concept made it possible to configure the ANZAC design with sufficient weight and space allowance for future upgrades - the so-called 'fitted for but not with' philosophy. This attracted considerable criticism then and later, but was probably essential at the time to ensure that the RAN could order sufficient surface combatants with sufficient growth potential at an affordable price. In hindsight, it may have been a smarter move than posterity gives credit for.

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/C99 ... 50568C22C9

I was thinking that FFBNW means for example that ship has no harpoon missiles, but it has all control facilities and wirings to use them if fitted? Or that it has Mk41, but without Tomahawks etc...

[seaspear]

A.N.Z.A.C class had the design and ability to mount towed sonar but were never fitted

[R686]

I was thinking that FFBNW means for example that ship has no harpoon missiles, but it has all control facilities and wirings to use them if fitted? Or that it has Mk41, but without Tomahawks etc...

No not really in my view as the capabilty is mounted but you just dont have the missile in place. Any systems can be partially fitted like deck penertrated mounting systems and cabling with the actual system being fitted at a latter date that also can be classed as FFBNW.

[Opinion3]

Interesting comment as interpreting this as having the weight margins etc. because with assets expected to last decades what is the cost of NOT having the margins?

My interpretation is a bolt on can be added with relative ease, e.g. the A400M can be used as a refueller because it is fitted for this capability.

[ArmChairCivvy]

what is the cost of NOT having the margins?

Huge.

The World Bank perfected the extension of CBA (Cost/ Benefit Analysis) to incorporate that aspect in all project assessments (ie. they would not fund one presented without) in the late 60's. The military is still more often than not presenting projects analysed only against the null option (do nothing, or just upgrade ongoing... often a good option, too, when you look at all investment alternatives as a broader portfolio , competing for limited investment funds. Just that if you keep squeezing the envelope, even good projects keep shifting to the right - for so long that they become less good, entering service much closer to their day of obsolescense.

What do you actually need?
An intellectual process that delivers a future steady state - that's why we need NSS to proceed to something sensible and industrially stable - and meets fighting requirements in the three domains (under, on and above... oops, there is cyber and space, too, most often lumped together in order to not go too far away from the more easily comparable three) as per RN's own expert assessments (let's be real: they are the experts in the overall process for this part of it; the defence industry may have many juicy concepts and sexy demonstrators but that is just the shop window for the candy store).

How is an acceptable degree of risk determined in all of this? Here comes the reason why we have a Joint Chief for all the other Chiefs and also the Joint Command (as we are talking about the navy here, the ultimate criterion for its investment share, and whether that should go up or down within the overall - given - envelope is to possess the capabilities and capacity that do not to jeopardize joint force campaign success).

The politicians get the easy bit:
- what are the threats and what kinds of campaigns (and with who as others in the alliance) could those lead to
- how much of the state expenditure should be allocated to defence (and security, incl. the fashionable forward engagement)

[S M H]

The navy have done this before patrol boats Leeds Castle fitted for but not equipped. I saw her during construction she was wired for 76 mm gun and the support system. I saw her at Invergordon along side when new they had fitted her with 40 mm gun. When she was sold to Bangladesh she was equipped with 76mm that she was designed for. The problem comes when the treasury mandarins' say *the ship works with what its fitted with. So if you want to fit it with what it was designed for you must pay for it by departmental savings or use equipment from ships in refit. Because there political masters will not fund the commitments they require to be done.

[Aethulwulf]

There are subtle differences between FTR, FFBNW, and SWaP.

Fit to Receive (FTR) is the highest level. This is for systems that are not permanently installed, but can be quickly fitted when needed. For example, most RFAs are FTR weapon systems which are then moved around the fleet and fitted prior to deployments as required.

FFBNW is one step down from this. Here the specified system is integrated into the design but not fitted. The intention being that the system will able to bought and fitted as and when funds allow (or threats increase).

Space, Weight and Power (SWaP) is simply making an allowance for a future system in a design. Often the precise nature of the system will be unknown. If any such system does get fitted in the future, it is likely to require a fair amount of effort to integrate with the ship's systems.

For the Type 31, apart from a radar and combat system, a main gun and a flight deck plus hanger, I'd expect most of the other combat and sensor systems will initially be a mixture of FTR, FFBNW & SWaP.

[ArmChairCivvy]

likely to require a fair amount of effort to integrate with the ship's systems.

Used to be the preserve of "mid
-life" refits... until classes like T23 started having new mid-lifes/lives in their proverbial '60s.

most to the other combat and sensor systems will initially be a mixture of FTR, FFBNW & SWaP.

That's the way to go, Danish frigates and the Anzacs having paved the way. Even the Norwegians took the stand that they will get enough of hulls for the primary threat (ASW. as a counter for it), make the AD good enough and upgrade later
- in a way you end up "paying twice" but when we are talking one of the mainstays of the navy far into the future, evening out the cost is not a trivial angle

[Aethulwulf]

An interesting comparison might be the Mk41 VLS on Type 26 and the CAMM launchers on Type 31.

I was told that at one point Mk41 was going to be FFBNW on the T26 but, after comparing the cost of fitting during build and fitting during a refit, it was decided to fit at build.

For CAMM, the fitting and integration is so much easier that I hear that FTR might be an option for the T31. So that a pool of CAMM launchers maintained, and fitted to T31 prior to deployments as required.

(Health warning: I hear rumours - not facts.)

[ArmChairCivvy]

I hear that FTR might be an option for the T31. So that a pool of CAMM launchers maintained, and fitted to T31 prior to deployments as required.

A good choice - the forward thinking naval architects have of course considered the dimensions differences between CAMM & ER of the same? Even when they otherwise "work the same"?

[dmereifield]

I hear that FTR might be an option for the T31. So that a pool of CAMM launchers maintained, and fitted to T31 prior to deployments as required.

A good choice - the forward thinking naval architects have of course considered the dimensions differences between CAMM & ER of the same? Even when they otherwise "work the same"?

I hear that FTR might be an option for the T31. So that a pool of CAMM launchers maintained, and fitted to T31 prior to deployments as required.

A good choice - the forward thinking naval architects have of course considered the dimensions differences between CAMM & ER of the same? Even when they otherwise "work the same"?

Crikey, would that make a material difference to the costs? I thought CAMM was supposed to be cheap?
Would this not limit their utility in a shtf situation, if we only had 2 or 3 CAMM sets, we couldn't surge beyond 2 or 3 T31 in the mix

[Aethulwulf]

Crikey, would that make a material difference to the costs? I thought CAMM was supposed to be cheap?
Would this not limit their utility in a shtf situation, if we only had 2 or 3 CAMM sets, we couldn't surge beyond 2 or 3 T31 in the mix

Yes that is the risk you take with FTR.

You don't need CAMM while chasing drug smugglers or people smugglers or pirates. You do need it to operate in certain sea areas currently.

Juggling systems around to manage that type of risk is something with which the RN has had a lot of practice.

I suspect that to cut costs to the bone, initially the T31 will not be able to fulfil a war fighting role. However, the ships will be designed with a lot of a FTR, FFBNW & SWaP so that in the long run than can take on some more fighting roles.

[dmereifield]

Crikey, would that make a material difference to the costs? I thought CAMM was supposed to be cheap?
Would this not limit their utility in a shtf situation, if we only had 2 or 3 CAMM sets, we couldn't surge beyond 2 or 3 T31 in the mix

Yes that is the risk you take with RTF.

You don't need CAMM while chasing drug smugglers or people smugglers or pirates. You do need it to operate in certain sea areas currently.

Juggling systems around to manage that type of risk is something with which the RN has had a lot of practice.

I suspect that to cut costs to the bone, initially the T31 will not be able to fulfil a war fighting role. However, the ships will be designed with a lot of RTF, FFBNW & SWaP so that in the long run than can take on some more fighting roles.

So we will be down to 14 escorts?

[LordJim]

Isn't "Plug and Play", the natural progression for RTF, as shown by the Danish model. Should the UK look again at this idea given the number of hull we are likely to be able to afford against the number of different roles that are coming up for renewal. Is it possible to have one modular hull to cover everything from ASW Escort to MCM and so on. I know we have been here before, and the T-31s compulsory 5" Gun makes it difficult but a further look could be worth while.

[Caribbean]

So we will be down to 14 escorts?

I guess that depends on whether the rumoured 3 new 2087 arrays are additions or replacements.

[Ron5]

I'm pretty sure the Danes don't use their modular fits very much if at all. Considered to have been a waste of money.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the Danes don't use their modular fits very much if at all

Time has run past it as the multi-role Flyvefisken class (different batches) are being withdrawn. They (the modules) weren't swapped around that much, and the direct descendant (as in LCS and its modules) is also having make-overs in yards rather than in the intended roll-on/roll-off way.

By "paving the way" I was earlier referring to their two subsequent frigate classes: get the hulls in the water, train the crews, and then incrementally put all the different weapon systems in place (spreads the bill nicely, and you will still know when the intended capability level will be reached). So RTF, more or less.

[dmereifield]

the Danes don't use their modular fits very much if at all

Time has run past it as the multi-role Flyvefisken class (different batches) are being withdrawn. They (the modules) weren't swapped around that much, and the direct descendant (as in LCS and its modules) is also having make-overs in yards rather than in the intended roll-on/roll-off way.

By "paving the way" I was earlier referring to their two subsequent frigate classes: get the hulls in the water, train the crews, and then incrementally put all the different weapon systems in place (spreads the bill nicely, and you will still know when the intended capability level will be reached). So RTF, more or less.

Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but it just sounds risky to me. Intended upgrades and add ons look ripe for stealth cuts further down the line...

[Opinion3]

The problem with all this "incomplete" specification stuff is it is a bit like the financial crisis. If you don't keep it simple people inaccurately assess the risks.

That said obviously we all like options....

[ArmChairCivvy]

FTR, FFBNW, and SWaP

The 31 being an "E" imposes some discipline, though?

Instead of being the normal RN FFBNW, for lack of money, FTR & SWaP combo
- will make it as cheap as possible to get the minimum level for own needs, and with known kit (incrementally)
- while the SWaP will future proof for the RN and open up the whole world's sortiment for export customers to choose from

[donald_of_tokyo]

I am not so much negative against FFBNW. It clearly states,

NOT WITH.

Not stealth cut.

I do not like FTR. We see many examples T23 goes with no SeaWolf carried. Also no harpoon. What is more, they deploy with no ASW crew onboard sometimes.

Typical stealth cut, it is.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The terms are clearly defined, let's not get emotional about stealth cuts as they may have been (or deemed to have been) implemented.

Each of those three have a rationale behind them; as per usual... what is the best mix.... or roll out everything fitted to the brim: The Sultan of Brunei once ordered a Mini, with a full bar fitted for the back seat (erhmm... those were the days, no one was posting a protest on social media the next day.)

[Spinflight]

The cost of building ships is split up into Hull, propulsion, electricity generation, combat system, amenities, outfitting and armament.

Trouble is that ffbnw doesn't just save on armament, though this in itself is considerable.

Take a 24 cell mk41. Think these cost about $40m. Then whatever it is filled with. Quad packing essm would be about $150m, all tlam about $50m.

Missiles are time lifed. I'm not sure whether unspent tlam, sm2 etc are remanufactured or disposed of though generally the shelf life isn't as long as you might think. Camm for instance makes a selling point of ten years.

Then you are saving on the maintenance ,the spares ,the extra time in port should they go wrong and most importantly the combat system.

A top line combat system would probably set you back $400m, a lesser capable one $100m. You don't necessarily need the top line if you don't have the capability to engage.

Also power density. Double the hull and you double the cost. Double the power density and you double it again. Hence small very densely packed warships are not just crap, they're pricey crap.

Also think about the learning curve. Prices amongst classes stabilise after the ninth hull on average. The first three likely cost 2.5 times the price of the first and the overall learning benefit is lower (better) the less the overall complexity in terms of both power density and size. I think the last Canadian frigates cost 73% that of the first, Australian Hobarts though seem to be heading in the opposite direction..

Hence by ffbnw there are unobvious but rather large savings to be made, the combat system can be upgraded, the mk41 fitted and loaded and all by shipyards which are well practised at doing it in refit. This can be done pretty quickly if really needed, whilst the actual cost of doing fisheries protection loaded for bear with a full warload isn't obvious.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk