The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Systems Adict]

If we don't cross-deck anything to T-31e we end up with spare Artisans, CAMM launchers, etc., since we're fitting more T23s with 'em than we're building T26s.

I appreciate the logic seeing as there are x10, T23's in the UK arsenal & if all goes to plan (remembering that we're currently only contracted to build a set of x3 ships at this time), then we will have only x8, T26's. But if we have x5 T31's, we're actually, x3 sets SHORT.

Until more data comes out from UK Govt PLC, then we're all speculating...

 

[StobieWan]

Here's a link or three from the MoD about Type 31...

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2017/september/06/170906-ambitious-future-for-naval-shipbuilding-in-the-uk

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2017/september/07/170907-t31e-frigate-announcement

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/documents/events/20170901-t31e-launch-folder-line-diagram-v4-1.pdf?la=en-gb


I would like to add that NO WHERE in either of the press releases from the MoD or the associated PDF does it state that ANY equipment from T23 will be cross-decked to T31.

Type 26 however WILL have equipment cross-decked from T23.

SA

I suspect if they have any ambition to meet the target price, using existing sensors, VLS and other systems will be vital. It might not say they're going to but until I see an announcement indicating they *won't* I'll be running with "they will"

 

[swerve]

I appreciate the logic seeing as there are x10, T23's in the UK arsenal & if all goes to plan (remembering that we're currently only contracted to build a set of x3 ships at this time), then we will have only x8, T26's. But if we have x5 T31's, we're actually, x3 sets SHORT.

Actually we have 13 Type 23s, so we'd have exactly the right number of everything if it was all carried across to 8 x T26 (8 T23s have Sonar 2087) & 5 x T31e.

BAE recently said that 11 Type 23s had been fitted with Artisan so far. Portland gets it next year, & I think the other one lacking it is Lancaster.

 

[Systems Adict]

Actually we have 13 Type 23s, so we'd have exactly the right number of everything if it was all carried across to 8 x T26 (8 T23s have Sonar 2087) & 5 x T31e.

BAE recently said that 11 Type 23s had been fitted with Artisan so far. Portland gets it next year, & I think the other one lacking it is Lancaster.

DOH !!!!!

Had it in my head that we ORIGINALLY had x13, then flogged 3, leaving the UK with x10

My Bad...

SA

 

[swerve]

Aha! You remembered what we were left with as what we started with, & then deducted the three we sold off!

I've done that sort of thing sometimes.

 

[Volkodav]

Aha! You remembered what we were left with as what we started with, & then deducted the three we sold off!

I've done that sort of thing sometimes.

Politicians and public/civil servants do it all the time. How often are temporary capability short falls sold as the status quo after a couple of years then made the subject of further cuts.

 

[StobieWan]

Actually we have 13 Type 23s, so we'd have exactly the right number of everything if it was all carried across to 8 x T26 (8 T23s have Sonar 2087) & 5 x T31e.

BAE recently said that 11 Type 23s had been fitted with Artisan so far. Portland gets it next year, & I think the other one lacking it is Lancaster.

There was some discussion on another forum that the initial contract for the three T26's included additional Artisan and similar kit which meant there'd be some spares lying around as well - haven't been able to confirm that anywhere but it might have been necessary to get the numbers to work in terms of keeping a 23 in service while a 26 was worked up.

It'd be interesting if that were true.

Type 31, I don't understand it - firstly this talk of a modular build - that's not going to bring the price down and you'd be recreating a ship building capability in other parts of the UK, right after all the effort to establish a frigate factory so to speak in Scotland - a ship like the proposed design could easily be a unit construction build or even build in sections but all on the same site (modular construction does bring some benefits on a single site build and it worked fine for the Astute class)

Are they trying to displace the Clyde yards or what?

 

[KiwiRob]

Type 31, I don't understand it - firstly this talk of a modular build - that's not going to bring the price down and you'd be recreating a ship building capability in other parts of the UK, right after all the effort to establish a frigate factory so to speak in Scotland - a ship like the proposed design could easily be a unit construction build or even build in sections but all on the same site (modular construction does bring some benefits on a single site build and it worked fine for the Astute class)

Are they trying to displace the Clyde yards or what?

Shipbuilding capability already exist at other locations around the UK, as proven by the CVF program.

 

[swerve]

There was some discussion on another forum that the initial contract for the three T26's included additional Artisan and similar kit which meant there'd be some spares lying around as well - haven't been able to confirm that anywhere but it might have been necessary to get the numbers to work in terms of keeping a 23 in service while a 26 was worked up.

It'd be interesting if that were true.

Type 31, I don't understand it - firstly this talk of a modular build - that's not going to bring the price down and you'd be recreating a ship building capability in other parts of the UK, right after all the effort to establish a frigate factory so to speak in Scotland - a ship like the proposed design could easily be a unit construction build or even build in sections but all on the same site (modular construction does bring some benefits on a single site build and it worked fine for the Astute class)

Are they trying to displace the Clyde yards or what?

Perhaps they've cottoned on to Big And Expensive's lack of interest in keeping down costs & decided that a bit of competition might be a good idea. It might even induce BAE to sharpen up its act before the guaranteed work finishes.

BAE seems to have enough work to meet contractual obligations, & there's already shipbuilding capability elsewhere. Cammell Laird's building ships, & so's Babcock.

The modular construction could be necessary because of the capabilities of yards. How many have all the infrastructure in place & all the workers, with all the skills, needed to build complete frigates at the desired rate without investment which would have to be added to the cost of the contract? Given the timescale, it might not be practical even if money's thrown at one yard.

But parcel out the work, & building 'em on schedule might be a safe bet with current capabilities.

 

[Systems Adict]

Perhaps they've cottoned on to Big And Expensive's lack of interest in keeping down costs & decided that a bit of competition might be a good idea. It might even induce BAE to sharpen up its act before the guaranteed work finishes.

Being 'in the industry' for the last 20 odd years has taught me that there is no-one within the UK shipbuilding industry that can ever achieve the demands of UK Gov't PLC, with many of the naysayers forgetting the issues that were had with the LSD(A) contract, or the changes made by UK Govt PLC to QEC (that are readily documented within the close to 800 pages & 12,000 thread replies in this topic).

At present, the ToBA & the demands of UK Govt PLC, mean that projects such as Type 26 & River Class batch 2, are 'open books', so no-one is having any wool pulled over their eyes...

BAE seems to have enough work to meet contractual obligations, & there's already shipbuilding capability elsewhere. Cammell Laird's building ships, & so's Babcock.

Babcock are a 'service provider', not a shipbuilder...

https://www.babcockinternational.com/Sectors/Defence

The modular construction could be necessary because of the capabilities of yards. How many have all the infrastructure in place & all the workers, with all the skills, needed to build complete frigates at the desired rate without investment which would have to be added to the cost of the contract? Given the timescale, it might not be practical even if money's thrown at one yard.

But parcel out the work, & building 'em on schedule might be a safe bet with current capabilities.

My friend, you have hit the proverbial nail, on the head.

The transportation cost of shipping these sections about the country will be 'expensive'.

The lack of infrastructure & the necessary skills base is lacking. The number of yards that COULD do the work is extremely limited.

BAE - Glasgow x2 yards.
Ferguson Marine - The last shipyard on the lower Clyde
Babcock Rosyth - Limited capabilities, but could be ideal for parcelling it all together, Once PoW carrier has left ??
Cammell Laird - Small yard that has been on the cusp of & has closed many times over the last 20 years. (Currently busy with Boaty McBoatface)
A&P (Tyneside & Plymouth) Limited capabilities at both sites

Portsmouth Royal Dockyard - NO official shipbuilding capabilities, but could be able to construct modules, IF Uk Govt PLC wants it to happen.

VT's old facilities at Woolston - Currently being used for yacht construction ?

Can you think of any more in the UK ??


SA

 

[StobieWan]

Pallion - could do modules..


Pallion Shipyard - Ship Building, Maintenance and Repair in Sunderland

 

[StobieWan]

Shipbuilding capability already exist at other locations around the UK, as proven by the CVF program.

There's nothing in my post to suggest I believed otherwise - I am wondering why the reversal in what appeared to have been a strategic decision to concentrate complex warship construction in the Clyde yards.

 

[Sellers]

Being 'in the industry' for the last 20 odd years has taught me that there is no-one within the UK shipbuilding industry that can ever achieve the demands of UK Gov't PLC, with many of the naysayers forgetting the issues that were had with the LSD(A) contract, or the changes made by UK Govt PLC to QEC (that are readily documented within the close to 800 pages & 12,000 thread replies in this topic).

At present, the ToBA & the demands of UK Govt PLC, mean that projects such as Type 26 & River Class batch 2, are 'open books', so no-one is having any wool pulled over their eyes...



Babcock are a 'service provider', not a shipbuilder...

https://www.babcockinternational.com/Sectors/Defence




My friend, you have hit the proverbial nail, on the head.

The transportation cost of shipping these sections about the country will be 'expensive'.

The lack of infrastructure & the necessary skills base is lacking. The number of yards that COULD do the work is extremely limited.

BAE - Glasgow x2 yards.
Ferguson Marine - The last shipyard on the lower Clyde
Babcock Rosyth - Limited capabilities, but could be ideal for parcelling it all together, Once PoW carrier has left ??
Cammell Laird - Small yard that has been on the cusp of & has closed many times over the last 20 years. (Currently busy with Boaty McBoatface)
A&P (Tyneside & Plymouth) Limited capabilities at both sites

Portsmouth Royal Dockyard - NO official shipbuilding capabilities, but could be able to construct modules, IF Uk Govt PLC wants it to happen.

VT's old facilities at Woolston - Currently being used for yacht construction ?

Can you think of any more in the UK ??


SA

It would appear to me that Babcock are in a strong position. Credible design put forward in Arrowhead supported by facilities. If Babcock pulled it together, upon completion of work we would have a genuine competitor to BAE. Who would be contented still, by their opv/t26 work load, with Albion, T45, Bay, mcm work to bid for between them.

Babcock have experience of assembly at Rosyth through their part in the carrier work, and crucially facilities at Appledore and Devonport.

Appledore is in the middle of constructing x4 opv for the Irish Navy following the successful tender and build of x2 opv for them in the early noughties. As well as building the Echo class and HMS Scott on site in the last 20 years or so.

If they can build the hull plus 76mm gun, pad for merlin but hangar for wildcat etc for circa £150m (the cost people generally attach to a B2 River). Then I see no reason why the other £100m couldn't be the integration costs of the already paid for radar, sonar, camm, phalanx, seagnat etc from the retiring T23s.

This would to my mind, be a credible lower tier escort. Fit for FRES, APTS, APTN, Med patrols, arguably kipion (as we have tail less monmouth their currently). Leaving T26/45 for other commitments and carrier escort.

What I do find intriging, is the rumored buy of x3 radar, sonar kits etc. If this leaves open the possibility of extending T31 to 8 hulls circa 2030 (manpower coming from reduced manning across T26/31 fleets compared to T23). Then this would be a real boon to the Royal Navy.

And would demonstrate real growth with a potential 2030s fleet of x22 ff/dd x5 Opv.

I genuinely think the T31 could be a pragmatic and strategic (build locations) success.

Sellers

 

[ADMk2]

Some good news for the RN for a change...

DSEI 2017: UK defers Harpoon retirement

Tim Ripley - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

14 September 2017

Key Points
- The RN has deferred a decision to retire its Harpoon anti-ship missiles
- The move will partially alleviate a capability gap in RN anti-ship missile capabilities

Boeing Harpoon heavy anti-ship missiles will remain in service on Royal Navy (RN) Type 23 frigates after the UK Ministry of Defence deferred a decision to retire the weapon in 2018 without replacement.

Speaking at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) 2017 defence exhibition, held in London from 11-15 September, senior RN sources told Jane’s the sea-skimming GWS 60/Harpoon Block 1C missiles would remain in service at least until 2020. “There is work ongoing to look at options for longer extension in service,” said one source.

(114 of 525 words)

 

[PeterCrisp]

Is the main reason for retirement that the components degrade?
How expensive is it to just keep using stuff as surely the people are already trained to fix issues and use them? Surely storage can't be that expensive?

 

[StobieWan]

I can't speak specifically to Harpoon but most missiles have a handling cycle with a number of fit/deploy/demount actions before they need servicing - what most Harpoon users have been doing is sending their missiles back for upgrades to keep them current. The rocket motors and a number of other components have shelf lives as well.

 

[WillS]

T31e RFI out

For those that are interested in such things, the RFI (Request for Information) for the T31e is now out

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/645149/T31e_RFI.pdf

Nothing particularly startling, the RFI confirms it's for a minimum of 5 ships at a maximum average price of £250m per ship, with a core crew of less than 100. Also confirms the intention is to place "a firm price contract for a first order of five ships".

For those who like skipping to the end of books, all of the "what do we want it to do/carry" stuff is in Annex F ;-)

WillS.

 

[StobieWan]

That's depressing. Fitted for practically anything, very little actually required. Stick a 127mm on a stretched River and you're done.

 

[swerve]

We're going to have already owned equipment & weapons coming available, starting at exactly the time the first of these is supposed to be commissioned. While that means the first might be too late to receive any of it, when the rest are being built we'll have kit becoming available with the choice of scrapping, storing, or fitting to ships - & a previous plan to fit it to five of the T26s.

It's hard to believe that it won't end up on the T31es, which will, after all, be fitted for it..

 

[ASSAIL]

That's depressing. Fitted for practically anything, very little actually required. Stick a 127mm on a stretched River and you're done.

The only ray of sunshine in that depressing tale is "design life 10-15 years"

I see the new "fitted for but not with" now becomes "fitted to receive"