The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[matt00773]

HMS Daring Didn’t actually commission until 2009, so depending on how hard she got knocked around during first of class trials and defects she will only have 21 years of hard use in 2030. Young enough and current enough for a sale to Brazil, Chile or Poland to be attractive?

Don’t the City class have a proprietary BAe CMS? They may just further develop that to replace PAAMS though I assume the RN will stay with Aster unless they pay MDBA-UK to develop a replacement.

The City class will operate BAE CMS-1 - which was originally developed for the Type 45. CMS-1 is, in some configuration, running all RN ships - QEC, Type 23, Albion, Argus etc. You wouldn't develop CMS-1 to replace PAAMS as its a completely different function. PAAMS refers to the weapons system architecture (radar, VLS, CMS, firecontrol etc) in the same way that Aegis is a weapons system architecture. Aegis just happens also to be the name of the CMS.

There's a lot of capability and upgrade potential in Type 45. I don't see any urgency in replacement as others seem to.

 

[KiwiRob]

Just a thought considering the size of the Type 26 and potentially the Babcock Type 31e will the Frigate Refit Complex drydocks be able to fit them? I’ve read that the docks are 130m long, that’s too short, but I’ve also read they were lengthened to fit the Batch 2 Type 22 frigates which were 146m long. Does anyone know the answer, there’s nothing about the docks on the Babcock webpage about the facility.

 

[SpazSinbad]

QEC ship-air certification 17 Jul 2018 Military Aviation Authority
"This article explains the certification process of Ship-Air System Integration and how it has applied to the UK's newest Aircraft Carrier."

QEC ship-air certification

 

[Systems Adict]

Just a thought considering the size of the Type 26 and potentially the Babcock Type 31e will the Frigate Refit Complex drydocks be able to fit them? I’ve read that the docks are 130m long, that’s too short, but I’ve also read they were lengthened to fit the Batch 2 Type 22 frigates which were 146m long. Does anyone know the answer, there’s nothing about the docks on the Babcock webpage about the facility.

Are you discussing the docks in the Naval dockyard at Portsmouth, or Babcock's refit facilities at Plymouth ?

 

[KiwiRob]

Are you discussing the docks in the Naval dockyard at Portsmouth, or Babcock's refit facilities at Plymouth ?

The frigate refit complex in Devonport, its three covered drydocks operated by Babcock.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Getting bad news about Type 31e acquisition on twitter.

@NavyLookout
Bad news... The finely balanced RN frigate replacement program has all just gone out of the window… Type 31e programme has been suspended due to "insufficient competition” - ie. no one could build a ship at the £250M price​

Link to synopsis of Janes article on subject

UK halts Type 31e frigate competition
​

 

[John Fedup]

The £250 million always seemed pretty optimistic given the current prices of other current design frigates. If the T31 shares a lot of Iver Huitfeltd DNA then I can understand why the price point can't be met. The Ivers were constructed at low cost Eastern European yards that no longer exist. Then there is the issue construction standards. I believe at least some components of the Ivers were commercial, not military specs but others here can provide greater insight.

 

[John Fedup]

Perhaps this T31 halt will result in a T26 "Lite" that can be upgraded down the road. At the very least, identical hulls should reduce the T26 program costs somewhat.

 

[John Fedup]

Here's the UKDefenceJournal site take on the T31 blender suspension.

Type 31e Frigate programme suspended

 

[Volkodav]

When are politicians and buerocrats going to understand that you can either get by with what you are prepared to pay for, or be prepared to pay for what you need, and attempt to get it all for a nominal price will result in both capability shortfalls and cost blow outs. If they are not careful they could well find themselves either with nothing at all, or an unsatisfactory platform, that doesn't provide the needed capability, is later than needed, that costs as much or more than the originally planned Type 26 GP would have and is not competitive on the export market.

By delaying the project they have just increased the cost of the required capability with nothing to show for it. The only hope they have to save some money would be to order an additional batch of Type 26 to realise some savings on that project and avoid a valley of death.

 

[ASSAIL]

Getting bad news about Type 31e acquisition on twitter.

@NavyLookout
Bad news... The finely balanced RN frigate replacement program has all just gone out of the window… Type 31e programme has been suspended due to "insufficient competition” - ie. no one could build a ship at the £250M price​

Link to synopsis of Janes article on subject

UK halts Type 31e frigate competition
​

I don’t think anyone really believed you could get a modern functional war fighting frigate for GBP250m. Those earlier designs tossed around were glorified OPVs incapable of providing anything other than sovereignty patrols in the remaining UK possessions. They were not a contributor to the RNs power projection ambitions.

As the Leander and Arrowhead designs evolved into useful GP frigates it had been obvious that a completed and armed frigate would easily exceed the nonsensical price. So where are we now?

As Volk has said, delays serve to produce one result and that is to increase price, the longer the UK gov. procrastinates the worse it gets.
The only solutions seem to be, to pay the evolved T31 price, extend the lives of the, by then, geriatric T23s or bite the bullet on what should have occurred as planned and continue with the T26 lite.
Whichever solution is chosen the unrealistic expectation of providing an el cheapo frigate force for a world class navy has vanished and the government needs to muscle up and pay the price.

 

[King Wally]

Perhaps this T31 halt will result in a T26 "Lite" that can be upgraded down the road. At the very least, identical hulls should reduce the T26 program costs somewhat.

This is exactly what I was thinking too. Mass produce the basic T26 hull but offer a stripped down no-frills version that could in the future if desired be upgraded as required. The economies of scale should push the price down across the board and may even boost T26 export sales.

 

[John Fedup]

When are politicians and buerocrats going to understand that you can either get by with what you are prepared to pay for, or be prepared to pay for what you need, and attempt to get it all for a nominal price will result in both capability shortfalls and cost blow outs.

Probably never!

If they are not careful they could well find themselves either with nothing at all, or an unsatisfactory platform, that doesn't provide the needed capability, is later than needed, that costs as much or more than the originally planned Type 26 GP would have and is not competitive on the export market.

.

Sadly, not a bad description of how things have been done here lately.

 

[t68]

When are politicians and buerocrats going to understand that you can either get by with what you are prepared to pay for, or be prepared to pay for what you need, and attempt to get it all for a nominal price will result in both capability shortfalls and cost blow outs. If they are not careful they could well find themselves either with nothing at all, or an unsatisfactory platform, that doesn't provide the needed capability, is later than needed, that costs as much or more than the originally planned Type 26 GP would have and is not competitive on the export market.

By delaying the project they have just increased the cost of the required capability with nothing to show for it. The only hope they have to save some money would be to order an additional batch of Type 26 to realise some savings on that project and avoid a valley of death.

I believe the T31e was a fools errand from the start, how much money has been squandered, more wasted and for what?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Navy's cut-price frigate contract runs aground because of 'lack of competition'

IMO better off to build a Type 26 and just arm it with self defense missiles. At least then your logistics, training, upgrade etc are all straight forward and if you ever need to up gun, then while not trivial, it is possible to do so, perhaps in a mid life refit, or sell them on and someone else might want to arm them. Make them in to a UK version of the German F-125 which are in effect, big patrol ships. With the type 26 you get that flexible mission bay, expansive aviation support, and all those other aspects which might be really useful in a patrol ship.

Things like Phalanx, NSM/Harpoon can be easily swapped in and out. As can helicopters, etc. Standardise on a 5"

Of course the more sensible thing is to actually build ~14 Type 26's. Why should Canada and Australia each possibly build more type 26's than the UK?

If the UK built 14, Australia builds 9+, if Canada selects, then that would be ~40 ships possibly more. Getting close to Burke levels of build runs (well order of magnitude wise). So combined training, cross decking, simulators, logistics, development, upgrades etc all become a magnitude cheaper, easy and supported.

Doesn't the UK MOD look at support costs as well? Surely they could come up with a strong proposal for more Type 26.

If a war was to ever break out, changing the fit out of a half finished ship and building future ships with a certain fit out is a heck of a lot easier and doable than changing the ship type. Refitting existing hulls is also possible.

 

[spoz]

One needs to be careful of assuming that there will be high levels of commonality between the UK & Aust versions of the T26. The combat systems and possibly the weapons systems will be different; and even in the HM&E space the Aust ship may well have significant differences to the RN in things like switchboards, valves, galley equipment and many other areas. That will be multiplied again if the Canucks also choose it. Potential for common training (even if that was politically acceptable) and common development or upgrade paths etc is likely to be very limited. Exchange postings already occur between the three Navies; they are not dependant on common platforms

 

[StingrayOZ]

They will be different and each batch will be different too.

But there are some core technologies or aspects that are likely to be pretty common or have high levels of commonality. Propulsion, mech services, structure, electrical distribution and generation, etc. They don't have to be exactly the same, it can be handy to have alternatives that are different. I would imagine Australia would spec the highest ambient temperature for operating equipment, so next time the UK has trouble sending a ship to the middle east, they can adopt Australia's improvements or solutions.

I think the future opportunities for development are the most interesting.

 

[Todjaeger]

They will be different and each batch will be different too.

But there are some core technologies or aspects that are likely to be pretty common or have high levels of commonality. Propulsion, mech services, structure, electrical distribution and generation, etc. They don't have to be exactly the same, it can be handy to have alternatives that are different. I would imagine Australia would spec the highest ambient temperature for operating equipment, so next time the UK has trouble sending a ship to the middle east, they can adopt Australia's improvements or solutions.

I think the future opportunities for development are the most interesting.

Honestly, I would not make the assumption that the power distribution or generation systems would be the same or even necessarily all that common. The sensors and CMS are going to be different and therefore have different power and cooling demands, and that is before considering the areas of operation.

 

[ASSAIL]

Honestly, I would not make the assumption that the power distribution or generation systems would be the same or even necessarily all that common. The sensors and CMS are going to be different and therefore have different power and cooling demands, and that is before considering the areas of operation.

I've read recently, but can't find the ref thatCanada has signed an agreement with GE to use LM2500s in their T26 proposal, we have no indication yet on the RAN machinery.

 

[Todjaeger]

I've read recently, but can't find the ref thatCanada has signed an agreement with GE to use LM2500s in their T26 proposal, we have no indication yet on the RAN machinery.

Per the RAN's Hunter-class factsheet, the machinery will include a RR MT30 GT and four high speed MTU diesel generators. What the machinery will actually generate is not publicly available yet.