The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

I think there might need to be a bit of a reality check insofar as few bidders would be confident about building frigate sized warships for £250M.

I find it ironic that the Type 31e was intended for the export market and yet it is the Type 26 that may well go on to be one of the UK most successful naval exports. Obviously the Brits would prefer to build ships rather than licence the design but I think they could still do this with the Type 26. They could develop a stripped back GP version of the ship. That sort of ship might pick up a few sales in South America or SE Asia.

 

[John Fedup]

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.

GE has offered the LM2500 for two of the competing bidders but there is no mention of acceptance of GE GTs for the BAE bid.

GE offers its Marine Gas Turbines for CSC Program - Canadian Defence Review | Canadian Defence Review

 

[ASSAIL]

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.

Yes I did read that, sloppy on my part.

 

[hauritz]

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.

Even the F-125 costs around € 650 a piece.

Without spending more money the options are pretty limited and none of them are particularly good. You could cut back the Type-26 numbers even further to free up more money for the Type 31 ... which would be a terrible option. Build 9 or 10 Type 26 frigates and simply scrap the Type 31 completely. That would see an overall reduction of the escort fleet to 15 or 16 vessels ... still a terrible option. Pare back the Type 31 specs even further to the point where it might literally be not much more than a corvette of heavily armed OPV.

None of those options are all that enticing.

 

[swerve]

Yes, there isn't going to be a cheap Type 26, whatever you leave off. The hull is expensive (all that silencing, etc.), & most will get some kit from retired T23s. I'm not sure that even a patrol boat radar like the Terma Scanter would be cheaper than overhauling an ex-T23 Artisan. Missile launchers - CAMM VLS from T23. Bow sonar - same. And some other bits, IIRC. Where are the possible savings? Don't fit the Mk 41 VLS, & economise on the CMS? Fit a smaller & cheaper gun? But that means adding a new supply chain, which will add other costs. Will it really be cheaper in the long run?

It looks to me as if saving on the T31 is on the same scale. It could be cheaper than T26 because of big savings on the hull, no big VLS, & a bit on crewing & maintenance. Given the price of T26 (far, far more than originally stated) savings from a cheaper to build & operate hull could well be worthwhile (though beware complicating supply chains). But more that that? Fitting a cheaper radar means disposing of several Artisans we've already bought. Maybe omit any future upgrades to Artisan, leave off the bow sonar to save maintenance & hull construction costs. Big savings? Probably not. Worthwhile? Definitely not!

 

[Systems Adict]

Yes, there isn't going to be a cheap Type 26, whatever you leave off. The hull is expensive (all that silencing, etc.), & most will get some kit from retired T23s. I'm not sure that even a patrol boat radar like the Terma Scanter would be cheaper than overhauling an ex-T23 Artisan. Missile launchers - CAMM VLS from T23. Bow sonar - same. And some other bits, IIRC. Where are the possible savings? Don't fit the Mk 41 VLS, & economise on the CMS? Fit a smaller & cheaper gun? But that means adding a new supply chain, which will add other costs. Will it really be cheaper in the long run?

It looks to me as if saving on the T31 is on the same scale. It could be cheaper than T26 because of big savings on the hull, no big VLS, & a bit on crewing & maintenance. Given the price of T26 (far, far more than originally stated) a worthwhile saving from a cheaper to build & operate hull could well be worthwhile (though beware complicating supply chains). But more that that? Fitting a cheaper radar means disposing of several Artisans we've already bought. Maybe omit any future upgrades to Artisan, leave off the bow sonar to save maintenance & hull construction costs. Big savings? Probably not. Worthwhile? Definitely not!

The biggest issue in all of this the funding.

If you can't afford it, don't speculate, & at this moment my understanding is that UK PLC has effectively put 'a hold' on T31e, not cancelled it.

The prospect of finding further competitors to get into a design / bidding war is wholly impractical & if a major player was interested in the work, they would have thrown their hats in the ring during the initial offerings, last year.

The National Ship Building Strategy Document is still being held up by the Govt, as their plan for the future. However, not having the funds & expecting the suppliers to build products at a loss, or on a max of 6% profit, is a pointless exercise...

 

[KiwiRob]

I think the price will increase to £300m per vessel and I also believe the Cammell Laird Leander will be completely redesigned as a new ship rather than an extended patrol boat that it is today. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks Cammell Laird/BAE are responsible for this delay there vessel isn’t a match for Arrowhead 140, this delay will give them time to redesign or look for another design.

 

[swerve]

...
The prospect of finding further competitors to get into a design / bidding war is wholly impractical & if a major player was interested in the work, they would have thrown their hats in the ring during the initial offerings, last year.

The National Ship Building Strategy Document is still being held up by the Govt, as their plan for the future. However, not having the funds & expecting the suppliers to build products at a loss, or on a max of 6% profit, is a pointless exercise...

1) Indeed. Everyone who might have been interested put forward something last year, & fairly soon either consolidated into the consortia behind Leander & Arrowhead 140, or went quiet. I wouldn't be surprised if that was due to feedback from the MoD & sizing up the opposition. Every credible bidder in the UK's already in.

2) Absolutely.

 

[Systems Adict]

I think the price will increase to £300m per vessel and I also believe the Cammell Laird Leander will be completely redesigned as a new ship rather than an extended patrol boat that it is today. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks Cammell Laird/BAE are responsible for this delay there vessel isn’t a match for Arrowhead 140, this delay will give them time to redesign or look for another design.

I think you need to see a head doctor or wear MORE tinfoil on your head !

The Khareef Class Khareef Class Corvettes - Naval TechnologyKhareef Class Corvettes - Naval Technology that the Leander is based on IS effectively a new ship, as T31e's based on the ship, but believe that the internals have been re-hashed (unlike the River Class OPV's which are effectively a 'build-to-print' version of the Amazonas OPV's for Brazil) Amazonas Class Offshore Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology

 

[swerve]

Yeah, Leander's about 40% bigger (displacement) than Khareef, which was already a bit more than a patrol boat.

The RN says that as well as a different CMS, the River Batch 2s have internal differences from the Amazonas class, particularly to do with protection.

 

[hauritz]

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

It was an odd choice that seemed to come out of left field. It doesn't seem to serve any strategic purpose other than to allow the Brits to maintain the escort fleet at its current size.

They would probably be better off just cutting back the orders for the Type 26 back to say 10 ships and accepting that the number of escorts will be even further reduced. I guess this is the price you pay when you buy two huge carriers. It is going to distort the structure of your fleet.

 

[t68]

It was an odd choice that seemed to come out of left field. It doesn't seem to serve any strategic purpose other than to allow the Brits to maintain the escort fleet at its current size.

They would probably be better off just cutting back the orders for the Type 26 back to say 10 ships and accepting that the number of escorts will be even further reduced. I guess this is the price you pay when you buy two huge carriers. It is going to distort the structure of your fleet.

the Carriers are not the problem, its funding to a suitable level that recognises the desired capability. Volk said it best

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.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yep the pommy pollies and civil servants want a champagne armed forces but provide it with a lemonade funding allotment. They don't ever learn, or want too. One problem is far to many managers and bureaucrats clipping tickets.

 

[MrConservative]

Yep the pommy pollies and civil servants want a champagne armed forces but provide it with a lemonade funding allotment. They don't ever learn, or want too. One problem is far to many managers and bureaucrats clipping tickets.

The problem also is that Theresa May is no Maggie Thatcher.

Whatever some may think of her, Maggie was a leader, decisive, had charisma and got things done. Thatcher was Great Britain. May is Little Britain. No Maggie government would have been left the UK armed services in this bad a shape. And if it was something that she would have inherited, she have would have sorted it out and sorted out those who would get in her way with her handbag swinging, a steely gaze and a resounding NO NO NO!

 

[Shanesworld]

Wasn't she in the process 9f accepting the recommendations of the Nott report as the Falklands unfolded. And wasn't it her government that retired eagle and ark Royal thereby inviting that crisis. I think it doesn't matter who they are politicians being the shallow opportunists that they are will run down and deride defense spending until they desparately need it all to work for them.

 

[Systems Adict]

It was an odd choice that seemed to come out of left field. It doesn't seem to serve any strategic purpose other than to allow the Brits to maintain the escort fleet at its current size.

They would probably be better off just cutting back the orders for the Type 26 back to say 10 ships and accepting that the number of escorts will be even further reduced. I guess this is the price you pay when you buy two huge carriers. It is going to distort the structure of your fleet.

Cutting orders for T26 is suicide. It leaves our country without one of the key assets it will need from now till 2050, while killing an industrial capability that help maintain the nations defences. The carriers are an expense that the nation needs to start accepting as the large costs are an effect of political indecision, lack of knowledge & listening to spin coming from those who are not subject matter experts / are prone to knee-jerk reactions.

Systematic cuts to budgets for defence since the 1970's & thru the 1990's after the fall of the Berlin wall has been order of the day. An island nation that doesn't need to defend it's self so heavily, as the threat reduces, allowed the politico's to make noises about other things that need funding, demanding that funds be 'reallocated'.

Most of those in power have never served in the armed forces, have no concept of conflict (other than the suppressed news in the UK Media) & have no understanding that once you stop training & maintaining an armed force, cutting numbers based on age / length of service, destroys the capability, as all the knowledge & experience is lost.

Our current recruitment policies, retention of older service personnel by offering cash bonus incentives & sheer inability to fund the 'gold standard' of armed forces are incessantly undermining our nations capabilities. Foresight to look how old our technology is & plan ahead is a key factor too & in some ways the industry that is being slated & berated by the govt is trying to point out facts about equipment not lasting indefinitely & none of this is interfacing with Govt statements & policies regarding capability.
Some would say we're going to hell in a handcart, the sad news is that many know we're already there & funding is simply a band-aid, attempting to stop the haemorrhage..

Rant over...

SA

 

[StobieWan]

Wasn't she in the process 9f accepting the recommendations of the Nott report as the Falklands unfolded. And wasn't it her government that retired eagle and ark Royal thereby inviting that crisis. I think it doesn't matter who they are politicians being the shallow opportunists that they are will run down and deride defense spending until they desparately need it all to work for them.

Thatcher was about as useless on defence as any other PM in modern times and was destined to be a one term oddity were it not for the conflict her own government precipitated with deep defence cuts that would have gutted the RN.


But lets move away from politics guys, it's not the place here.

 

[MrConservative]

Thatcher was about as useless on defence as any other PM in modern times and was destined to be a one term oddity were it not for the conflict her own government precipitated with deep defence cuts that would have gutted the RN.

But lets move away from politics guys, it's not the place here.

I don't know if I can walk away from such a dreadful characterisation that smears the honour and memory of our Margaret.

But I will leave it there .. with the final word that I was prepared to offer a robust defence of the great lady's legacy.

 

[John Fedup]

Pollies in Europe and Canada have found it easy to cut defence expenditures in favour of whatever since the end of the coldwar. It is ironic that even with aggressive by China and Russia, it was Trump's threats to abandon its allies that has led pollies to revisit defence requirements. Unfortunately Trump's trade policies may ruin the ability for allied nations to pay for new military kit. In the case of Europe, an ugly Brexit divorce could put further strain on EU nations and the UK budgets for defence.

 

[StobieWan]

Guys, please, let's get back on topic here - the geopolitics forum awaits further examination of the various items raised regarding the wider arc of discussion.

I'll get us started with some comments on Type 31e - and a historical note - the last time to my knowledge that the RN commissioned a low end escort was the type 21 - good looking ships with relatively low fit-out intended for general purpose escort and flag waving in various parts of the world. They were never really intended to see action vs a peer or near peer threat and in action, while their crews were courageous and resourceful, they lacked the AA fit to survive or contribute in the FI although they did provide extra numbers for the enemy to shoot at.

Fast forward a bit and type 31e looms - and we know that while both designs aren't commercial standards, neither are they constructed to the same standards as the rest of the escort fleet as I understand it.

The fact that neither of the two bids has met the price point was a surprise to me, as I thought both would have bid as instructed - the fact that neither have would tend to indicate that everyone's pretty confident they can't be undercut by something that meets the spec. Frankly I'm a bit worried - we need to be cutting steel on these ships in a timely manner or we'll be looking at running on type 23 in the same expensive manner that Type 42 limped on for the last few years of their lives.

Type 26 is already very late in arriving in my eyes and I'd have been a lot happier if we'd had one in the water earlier this year. I've some sources suggesting the halt and restart is a technicality but it seems less and less likely that that's the actual situation.