We've done a lot of that. Idiotic decisions like the buy of the Chinooks for SFOR - there's a package on the table which does the job and is used by TF26/Nightstalkers who do exactly the same balls to the wall flying in crappy weather and at night that the RAF need to do. No, too expensive, we shall go our own bloody way. I think they sat in a hangar for years before the dust had settled enough to get them reworked properly.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I think that the long version of that story translates as...
" The UK Armed forces / Govt had to re-negotiate the contract with the supplier(at great expense), due to the fact that the UK Govt / Armed forces were supplied with the EXACT equipment they ordered, but were not prepared to pay even larger additional costs, to allow the airframes to be re-inserted earlier, back into the 'production line' at the suppliers facilities, to have them amended to the specs they needed, so opted to wait for the window that coincided with the slot at the end of the production run that was on the books at time of ordering.":smash
A costly 'cluster' if ever there was one.
Then again, we digress from Naval discussions....
Like I said, the UK, is not alone in this, short sighted cost cutting often sees you paying more for a lesser capability than the full capability would have cost, usually resulting in cuts to numbers to cover the short fall in funding which in turn drives unit cost higher again and reduces the money available for the next contract.
Businesses that are run like this tend to go bust, governments who do it cut services and / or increase tax.
Businesses that are run like this tend to go bust, governments who do it cut services and / or increase tax.
Ok, WTF has happened to the Type 26 program.
Britain Struggles With Costs for New Frigates | Defense News | defensenews.com
The expected cost rumours coming out of the mill, but one number sticks out. Initially the concepts for the Type 26 ran around 5400 - 6000t, supposedly the now expected displacement is 6500t but with a full load displacement of 8000!".
We're probably waving goodbye to a good chunk of those 13 hulls. Considering how much kit is being pulled through how on earth can there be cost issues?
Britain Struggles With Costs for New Frigates | Defense News | defensenews.com
The expected cost rumours coming out of the mill, but one number sticks out. Initially the concepts for the Type 26 ran around 5400 - 6000t, supposedly the now expected displacement is 6500t but with a full load displacement of 8000!".
We're probably waving goodbye to a good chunk of those 13 hulls. Considering how much kit is being pulled through how on earth can there be cost issues?
Last edited:
I thought the adage was that steel was cheap? The kit you put in inside them is expensive. However, if it is future proofed then go for it.
What is worrying is the noise we have heard over several years about setting up a planning and control group so that cost overruns would never happen again AND the programme would come in on time. Now I see the first mention of management consultants involved... The Navy don't know how to buy a vessel anymore?
Type 26 is a totally different style of program management than anything the MOD has done before - it's nakedly open to all involved as far as I understand it - no place to hide and nothing concealed. So, it may be we're just seeing stuff thrashed out before steel gets cut instead of during 
The displacement is a shocker mind - last I heard it'd been *cut* to 5000 std giving about 6,200 full so seeing a figure nearer 8000t full is "WTF?"
Having said that, if that's what the design ends up being because that's the requirements, there y'go. Needn't be that much more expensive in terms of materials because of course, steel is (relatively) cheap and air is (still, for the time being) free.
We'll see.
Bit surprised things are still being thrashed out like "how big" at this hour mind you.
The displacement is a shocker mind - last I heard it'd been *cut* to 5000 std giving about 6,200 full so seeing a figure nearer 8000t full is "WTF?"
Having said that, if that's what the design ends up being because that's the requirements, there y'go. Needn't be that much more expensive in terms of materials because of course, steel is (relatively) cheap and air is (still, for the time being) free.
We'll see.
Bit surprised things are still being thrashed out like "how big" at this hour mind you.
Nick underscore
Member
Ignoring the budgetary & management elements.Type 26 is a totally different style of program management than anything the MOD has done before - it's nakedly open to all involved as far as I understand it - no place to hide and nothing concealed. So, it may be we're just seeing stuff thrashed out before steel gets cut instead of during
The displacement is a shocker mind - last I heard it'd been *cut* to 5000 std giving about 6,200 full so seeing a figure nearer 8000t full is "WTF?"
Having said that, if that's what the design ends up being because that's the requirements, there y'go. Needn't be that much more expensive in terms of materials because of course, steel is (relatively) cheap and air is (still, for the time being) free.
We'll see.
Bit surprised things are still being thrashed out like "how big" at this hour mind you.
Is the significant change in displacement at this late stage, related at all to overseas markets and future customer requirements (Canada, NZ and possibly Gulf and Sth American countries)? The T26 has huge potential, assuming that the growth component has been factored-in from the outset.
It's a signal of changing requirements that's for sure or some bright spark keeps adding 'Oh and put this in' and making the design have to be changed.
I'd be very interested to know what's been added on.
I'd be very interested to know what's been added on.
I don't know but it's possible - the Australians were muttering that 26 wasn't big enough for their needs, and adding some space would be very cheap to do in terms of more mission bay area etc.Ditto more room for silos and sensors.
I'd be delighted if they did pop out to 8kt as that'd give a bit more room for ..well, everything..
I'd be delighted if they did pop out to 8kt as that'd give a bit more room for ..well, everything..
May have been early rumours, a Type 26 was originally supposed to be 5400.
The QEC has put on weight too, supposedly she's north of 70,000t than 65,000t
I don't think it was size per se. I think that we would have needed a type 26 plus, to add the capability we want which was not part of the original uk spec. 48 cells, tactom, anti ballistic missile capability, a giant higher radar, harpoon etc. One of the original whitepapers called for 7,000t frigates. The AWD are F-105 but have a growth margin that would push them to 7,000t. If we are going to build 7,000t frigates, why not use the hull we are already building.
The idea (IMO) then was to farm out some of the more patrolly duties to smaller ~2000t patrol ships. Where as the UK type 26 seemed to be more multiroled and a do everything hull.
It wasn't because Australia was put off by the size. Every ship we have ever had in the RAN has been too small for upgrades (aircraft carriers included). But 8000t may put it outside some nations comfort zones.
However, I assume there are smaller variants that these nations could choose?
I hate to say this, but it looks like it was quiet 'news' day, so someone has 'stroked the coals' on information from around 2010 /2011, where the initial design concepts of x2 hull designs, where effectively rolled into one.
Additionally, we know from experience, that initial design concepts, thru the design at pre & post contract signature, till a hull eventually enters service, the weight of said hull type can increase by as much as 1,000 - 1,500 GRT, as changes in design, capability & operability, progress thru the 5- 7 years or so it takes to get from 'back of a fag packet sketch' to ship sailing the oceans.
However, from the article, the thing I take on board is that the UK Govt is beginning to listen & think like the contractors it employs, by the utilisation of a 3rd party consultant.
It's no secret that the McKinsey Corp. had been 'assisting' UK Govt PLC since around year 2000 (if not before), on a wide variety of projects (not just of a military nature). Normally they are there to ensure 'fair play' & that VFM is being achieved, or to ensure that risk management is being used on items of High complexity, with High Risk, and Long periods of 'manufacturing', before the end product is available. All of this is 'good business sense'.
The reasoning for highlighting this fact, is also that there seems to be a step-change, in that the UK Govt & the supplier actually appear to be working hand in hand with each other to ensure success, with McKinsey appearing to be there as a 'safety blanket', ensuring that the wool isn't being pulled over anyone's eyes.
Previous Military projects over the last 15 years have been very 'them & us', with the UK Govt taking none of the responsibility for the actions & outcomes of decisions that have been made & that have allowed the supplier to look wholly 'unclean', when some of the reasoning behind design changes & cost overruns lie fairly & squarely at the feet of UK Govt PLC.
Another quote is that “Cost is one of the areas of risk within the program that we are working through with BAE Systems before we commit to the manufacture decision. The support provided by McKinsey is a valuable contribution to this work.”
The UK MoD have in the past, made it very clear that the quantity of vessels (total numbers) CANNOT be changed, as they are of the belief that the RN is on the tipping point of becoming purely a national player, rather than a world player. IMHO, this means that rather than cutting the vessel numbers, they're more likely to manage the manufacturing scheme into 'batches'. Add into the mix BAE's ToBA with the UK Govt & it's pretty black & white, that to sustain the manufacturing capability, the UK Govt MUST agree to build a minimum of 13 ships. No if's, No but's.
Finally, the equipment 'pull-thru'...
UK Govt PLC still has to procure many of the equipments, THEN fit them to the T23's. This action will cost a fair bit of 'chump-change', add to that the 'refit & refurbishment' costs, before the kit is fitted to T26 & on top of the costs of actually designing & manufacturing the T26, then there is a WHOLE lot of funds that need to be managed, along a 30 year time-line.
That's no mean feat & will need more than a mathematician & a slide rule, to work it out...
Comprehensive reply and much appreciated as always - it does sound like whilst it's a painful process, it's a long overdue overhaul in the way a ship is contracted for and built.
So, tonnage not 8Kt however? Last I'd heard it was about 5000-5300 std, hence my eyeballs on stalks reaction earlier.
So, tonnage not 8Kt however? Last I'd heard it was about 5000-5300 std, hence my eyeballs on stalks reaction earlier.
kev 99
Member
Looks like MBDA and UK PLC have won another export(ish) order for CAMM:
Companies Present Missile System
Although 70% of this is expected to be Brazilian content I would imagine basing it on CAMM would at least bring some nice £ to MBDA UK and UK PLC.
The editors note also mentions that the Brazilian navy has already selected CAMM for it's CV03 Corvettes. Is this news? I must have missed it.
Companies Present Missile System
Although 70% of this is expected to be Brazilian content I would imagine basing it on CAMM would at least bring some nice £ to MBDA UK and UK PLC.
The editors note also mentions that the Brazilian navy has already selected CAMM for it's CV03 Corvettes. Is this news? I must have missed it.
I'd imagine the 70% figure is the amount of local tech to build the transport and so forth for the missiles - they're using the same vehicle as for some other rocket launcher they have, which makes sense.
And no, I'd not heard the 03 order details before. Jolly good news I think.
And no, I'd not heard the 03 order details before. Jolly good news I think.
Indeed, just checked out Google and there's enough buzzing on Brazilian naval forums.
Programa LCS cai para 32 unidades, US Navy deverá buscar alternativas | Poder Naval - Marinha de Guerra, Tecnologia Militar Naval e Marinha Mercante
Ignore the topic about the LCS, read the comments. Discussion about ESSM compared to CAMM which appears to be spawning from the following link which claims that the Brazilian Navy eliminated the South African Umkhonto, Barack and VL Mica to get ESSM or CAMM.
Umkhonto, Barak e MicaVL fora da futura corveta da MB
Programa LCS cai para 32 unidades, US Navy deverá buscar alternativas | Poder Naval - Marinha de Guerra, Tecnologia Militar Naval e Marinha Mercante
Ignore the topic about the LCS, read the comments. Discussion about ESSM compared to CAMM which appears to be spawning from the following link which claims that the Brazilian Navy eliminated the South African Umkhonto, Barack and VL Mica to get ESSM or CAMM.
Umkhonto, Barak e MicaVL fora da futura corveta da MB
Interesting letter cited on another forum regarding Type 26:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/.../141009_SoS_re_Type_26_Global_Combat_Ship.pdf
Strike cells fitted at launch, possibility of a surge with two Merlin, and much besides.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/.../141009_SoS_re_Type_26_Global_Combat_Ship.pdf
Strike cells fitted at launch, possibility of a surge with two Merlin, and much besides.
There's a few very interesting bits of info in there, cheers!
Firstly.
Quite interested in the ASROC mention, the general assumption has been ASW capability will come from pulling the surface launched torp system from the Type 23. You'd think if that was still the plan, ASROC wouldn't get a look in.
Gotta say, I bloody love that mission bay.
Firstly.
- Like you said, surge to 2 Merlins or regularly a choice of 1 Merlin or 2 Wildcat
- Multiple mentions of 24 cells (up from 16) which can be armed with TLAM, ASROC and AShM
- FASGW(H) = Sea Venom (can also strike land targets)
- LMM = Martlet
- Claim that CAMM can provide limited LAAD than just on a ship-by-ship basis
Quite interested in the ASROC mention, the general assumption has been ASW capability will come from pulling the surface launched torp system from the Type 23. You'd think if that was still the plan, ASROC wouldn't get a look in.
Gotta say, I bloody love that mission bay.