The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Systems Adict]

It's interesting background but the discussion around the low end variant seems to suggest it'd have to be an entirely new design which means any savings made in not re-using the Type 26 hull for the GP variant will be eaten into by the design costs for this new variant.

I guess skipping a lot of the complex drive arrangements for the ASW variant must drive the cost down a fair bit.

If the RN wants hulls, then it may be better with a beefed up version of the OPV's that are currently being built.

However, cut out the mission bay from T26, reduce the overall hull length, use an all diesel engined / standard format engine / shaftline / gearbox layout, stick with the 5 inch gun / reduce the need for VLS / fit harpoon & a reduced FLAADS layout, along with the same shared infrastructure combat system / Artisan Radar and if you can get that all for a reasonable price, then you've got "some bang for yir bucks"...

Failing that, how about this....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khareef-class_corvette

Then again, having been told on numerous occasions by RN staff (after T45 construction had started) that less than 2 years after the contract had been signed, that the RN wanted something different, it wouldn't surprise me if the same was the case with the x5 variants...

SA

 

[StobieWan]

Well, I think BAE said you could get 27 knots out of Type 26 or a similar size with CODAD, you're skipping reduction gear by ditching the MT30 plus a few other handy things ..FLAADS is pulled through from the 23's so all the launchers and associated hardware are there.

I'd sooner keep the mission bay but if you're trying to get something exportable then I guess smaller/simpler works.. Leave Mk41 out entirely on the domestic version and you've got something moderately roomy with CAM and possibly CAM-ER plus Harpoon and a five inch gun plus good aviation facilities. Do an export variant with a potential CODLAG option if people fancied plus Mk41.


I personally suspect chasing export orders with a cheaper GPF variant is pointless as the frigate market is pretty much full of competing designs but if that's the plan, that might work.

I must admit when I heard of the new OPV orders, I'd hoped they'd look a bit more frigate like, or at least have a hangar so as to be more flexible but nope..

 

[ASSAIL]

Well, I think BAE said you could get 27 knots out of Type 26 or a similar size with CODAD, you're skipping reduction gear by ditching the MT30 plus a few other handy things ..FLAADS is pulled through from the 23's so all the launchers and associated hardware are there.

I'd sooner keep the mission bay but if you're trying to get something exportable then I guess smaller/simpler works.. Leave Mk41 out entirely on the domestic version and you've got something moderately roomy with CAM and possibly CAM-ER plus Harpoon and a five inch gun plus good aviation facilities. Do an export variant with a potential CODLAG option if people fancied plus Mk41.


I personally suspect chasing export orders with a cheaper GPF variant is pointless as the frigate market is pretty much full of competing designs but if that's the plan, that might work.

I must admit when I heard of the new OPV orders, I'd hoped they'd look a bit more frigate like, or at least have a hangar so as to be more flexible but nope..

I totally agree with you. The costs and risk involved with a new design far outweigh any savings from a continuous production of a basic T26. Surely the cost benefit analysis has been completed between the two by other than BAE? Export potential is a lost cause as the RNs pre eminent position in that space has been filled by TKS, Damen, Navantia et al. There's been inertia for far too long while demand has been filled by others.

To think that government believes that a great service would be served by a souped up OPV beggars belief. CVA battle groups don't operate with these if force projection is serious.

 

[hauritz]

After reading the Royal Navy's new frigates and the National Shipbuilding Strategy http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7737/CBP-7737.pdf
I was surprised to read that the government believes that theType 26 lacks export potential compared to the Type 31.

That surprises me since Australia is considering buying 9 of them and Canada is considering it for up to 15 new frigates.

I would suggest that the only thing really affecting the export potential of the type 26 is the constant dithering and lack of funding.

 

[John Fedup]

That surprises me since Australia is considering buying 9 of them and Canada is considering it for up to 15 new frigates.

I would suggest that the only thing really affecting the export potential of the type 26 is the constant dithering and lack of funding.

At one billion pounds for a Type 26, the cost is about 1.5 billion Cdn/Oz dollars. If that price was firm it might be doable for Australia and maybe even Canada but in 3-4 years the price will likely be higher and no metal has been cut yet. Then there is the risk factor, state-of-the-art but unproven versus recent current designs.

 

[Sellers]

Afternoon,

I understand the frustration with building the opv 'replacements' when the existing rivers have so much life remaining in them. However, I genuinely believe that they hold the secret to getting best use of our precious surface fleet.

I mentioned previously the feasibility of Gibraltar funding the op ex of an OPV, i'd recommend hms clyde 'gifted' with one of the new 5 then deployed to the south atlantic as a replacement. Giving us a total of 6, and the Gib ship permanently deployed to act as a more prominent deterrent and to aid north afraican migration.

To my mind, given tasking pressures i would advocate (as is taking place) gapping the s atlantic patrol, leaving circa 1000 men, rapier, x4 typhoon, hercules, voyager?, chinook (swap for wildcat?), opv as adequate defence given current Argentine capability.

One of the opv's to be permanently stationed in the Carribean to fulfill the n atlantic patrol. With the remaining 3 committed to fisheries as is now.

With 19 ships we can maintain 6 maybe 7 standing deployments with the above in mind i would list these as:

Kipion (typically a t45)
Protection of the deterrent TAPS (t23 asw)
FRES (t23 gp)
A dedicated east of suez patrol, occasionally in the far east but predominantly indian ocean east africa (t23 asw)
North sea/baltic sea to counter russian aggression (t45)

Freeing up an escort (maybe 2) to rotate between occasional s/n atlantic patrols, perhaps the black sea? Or even more pertinently to deploy with task forces such as currently with hms ocean, albion and rfa assets.

Allowing to maintain presence in s/n atlantic, strong presence in northern waters, a permanent opv presence in the med (with 2 deployments east of suez transiting through the med to rotate every 9 months or so) and say something turned hot in the gulf a t45, t23asw, x4 minesweepers, bay class and a sub east of suez to be directed with out impacting on other deployments.

This flexibility is unlocked arguably by the easy win of the new river class and accepting to pause or limit ff/dd deployments in the relatively safe atlantic areas.

Other easy wins, to reduce op ex would be to have argus replaced and operated under the aid budget, but manned by rfa and under command from the navy.

From savings from this i'd hope to go someway to bringing in to service the redundant 8 merlin airframes that are definitely needed.

Manpower with standing, another would be to have both albion class ships in service.

And finally, whilst I am open to t31 development, venator, khareef etc. It does seem at odds to the generally aim to reduce supply chains and different classes of equipment. It would seem more advantageous to build the 5 gp frigates based on the t26 hull if though 'stripped' down. Especially when the design does seem to be getting some genuine interested from Aus and Canada.

Just my thoughts of an afternoon.

Thanks Sellers

 

[chis73]

After reading the Royal Navy's new frigates and the National Shipbuilding Strategy http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7737/CBP-7737.pdf
I was surprised to read that the government believes that theType 26 lacks export potential compared to the Type 31.

That surprises me since Australia is considering buying 9 of them and Canada is considering it for up to 15 new frigates.

I would suggest that the only thing really affecting the export potential of the type 26 is the constant dithering and lack of funding.

When the UK Govt talks of 'export potential', I think they really mean 'shipbuilding jobs in the UK'. The Type 26 design has plenty of overseas interest, but most of the countries that are interested in it want to build it at home under licence (eg. Australia, Canada, maybe Brazil), and Australia & Canada in particular are unlikely to want British weapons or sensor systems either. The 'Type 31' may appeal to those countries without an organic shipbuilding capability - so there is more chance of it being built in the UK (which will probably be a condition of a sale). Even then, a UK build is likely to be noncompetitive against a possible South East Asian or Eastern European build.

 

[40 deg south]

I totally agree with you. The costs and risk involved with a new design far outweigh any savings from a continuous production of a basic T26. Surely the cost benefit analysis has been completed between the two by other than BAE? Export potential is a lost cause as the RNs pre eminent position in that space has been filled by TKS, Damen, Navantia et al. There's been inertia for far too long while demand has been filled by others.

To think that government believes that a great service would be served by a souped up OPV beggars belief. CVA battle groups don't operate with these if force projection is serious.

No dispute with the points you make.

But we tend to overlook the real reason why more OPVs were ordered. The Terms of Business Agreement (TOBA) between HM government and BAE commits the government or putting a certain amount of ship-building work through BAE's yards. In theory, as soon as work on the carriers began scaling down, T-26 construction should have begun to pick up the slack. For undisclosed management reasons, this has not happened.

The gov't had a choice of handing over large chunks of cash to BAE for nothing, or telling them to get cracking on a some make-work projects to keep the welders welding, plumbers plumbing etc. Hence the batch II Rivers. They have very little to do with the needs of the RN, and everything to do with papering over a failure in maritime industrial strategy.

 

[oldsig127]

When the UK Govt talks of 'export potential', I think they really mean 'shipbuilding jobs in the UK'. The Type 26 design has plenty of overseas interest, but most of the countries that are interested in it want to build it at home under licence (eg. Australia, Canada, maybe Brazil), and Australia & Canada in particular are unlikely to want British weapons or sensor systems either.

All nine Australian frigates will be built in Australia, and use Australian radar and US/Australian weapons and combat systems. In this case there will be few if any shipbuilding jobs in the UK and much of the equipment will also come from elsewhere.

oldsig

 

[swerve]

No dispute with the points you make.

But we tend to overlook the real reason why more OPVs were ordered. The Terms of Business Agreement (TOBA) between HM government and BAE commits the government or putting a certain amount of ship-building work through BAE's yards. In theory, as soon as work on the carriers began scaling down, T-26 construction should have begun to pick up the slack. For undisclosed management reasons, this has not happened.

The gov't had a choice of handing over large chunks of cash to BAE for nothing, or telling them to get cracking on a some make-work projects to keep the welders welding, plumbers plumbing etc. Hence the batch II Rivers. They have very little to do with the needs of the RN, and everything to do with papering over a failure in maritime industrial strategy.

Just so.

We're spending a lot of money to get ships which are a bit better than the ones we already have. It's nice that the RN will get better ships, but the existing ones are probably good enough for the job & should last many more years. It's not because we need the new ships, but for exactly the reasons you give. That's money which could have gone towards something the RN needs, such as frigates.

 

[swerve]

Afternoon,

I understand the frustration with building the opv 'replacements' when the existing rivers have so much life remaining in them. However, I genuinely believe that they hold the secret to getting best use of our precious surface fleet.

I mentioned previously the feasibility of Gibraltar funding the op ex of an OPV, i'd recommend hms clyde 'gifted' with one of the new 5 then deployed to the south atlantic as a replacement. Giving us a total of 6, and the Gib ship permanently deployed to act as a more prominent deterrent and to aid north afraican migration.

Thanks Sellers

I appreciate the uses you propose, but why did we need to get rid of the perfectly good old OPVs to achieve that? We could have got exactly the same result for less money by building a smaller number of new ships & keeping the old ones.

 

[ASSAIL]

No dispute with the points you make.

But we tend to overlook the real reason why more OPVs were ordered. The Terms of Business Agreement (TOBA) between HM government and BAE commits the government or putting a certain amount of ship-building work through BAE's yards. In theory, as soon as work on the carriers began scaling down, T-26 construction should have begun to pick up the slack. For undisclosed management reasons, this has not happened.

The gov't had a choice of handing over large chunks of cash to BAE for nothing, or telling them to get cracking on a some make-work projects to keep the welders welding, plumbers plumbing etc. Hence the batch II Rivers. They have very little to do with the needs of the RN, and everything to do with papering over a failure in maritime industrial strategy.

My "souped up" OPV comment referred to T31 project, as in Khareef types not the OPVs building at BAE. I do understand the self inflicted dilemma by the UK MOD.
I should have been clearer,

 

[Systems Adict]

I was surprised to read that the government believes that theType 26 lacks export potential compared to the Type 31.

That surprises me since Australia is considering buying 9 of them and Canada is considering it for up to 15 new frigates.

The issue with Foreign orders is that (as has been stated elsewhere on the last 3 pages of this thread), that the nations who may be interested in the Type 26 / 31, only want the design & assistance to develop an 'in-country' variant, rather than ships being built in the UK.

Yes, it will mean money coming into the UK (assuming the orders come to fruition), & some workload for design engineers, but the manufacturing capability would likely be further eroded...

SA

 

[t68]

The issue with Foreign orders is that (as has been stated elsewhere on the last 3 pages of this thread), that the nations who may be interested in the Type 26 / 31, only want the design & assistance to develop an 'in-country' variant, rather than ships being built in the UK.

Yes, it will mean money coming into the UK (assuming the orders come to fruition), & some workload for design engineers, but the manufacturing capability would likely be further eroded...

SA

Not a sure bet, but I think you have a very good chance with the Kiwis next Frigate now that Sea Ceptor is going on the current Anzac's, they may go for a more UK centric fitout rather than a RAN/US fit out

 

[Sellers]

I appreciate the uses you propose, but why did we need to get rid of the perfectly good old OPVs to achieve that? We could have got exactly the same result for less money by building a smaller number of new ships & keeping the old ones.

I agree with you, I suppose my post was more to do with how to get best used from the batch ll now we have them. No argument, that we could not have had the same effect by simply building 2 more to compliment the existing batch l's. Though, they're marginally an improvement.

Clearly, the govt wanted to get best use of the TOBA once it had become clear the t26 wouldn't follow the carrier work. In terms of a utilisation of money, i cant see why the tides could not have fulfilled the gap, though this is perhaps simplistic.

That being said, we wouldn't be getting an extra t26 for the money we've paid for the new rivers, we may have been able to secure an addtional t31 but thats so vague and distant its hard to believe it would have come to fruition.

Despite the fudge, were getting improved ships, and one additional to that class of ship. How often in recent years can we have said this...

Thanks

Sellers

 

[John Fedup]

The USMC seems to be interested in using the V-22 for air-to-air refueling. Anyone know if the RN is considering this for their carrier operations? Britain's Cobham is helping with the development.

Cobham Contracted to Develop Aerial Refueling Kit for V-22

 

[ngatimozart]

Not a sure bet, but I think you have a very good chance with the Kiwis next Frigate now that Sea Ceptor is going on the current Anzac's, they may go for a more UK centric fitout rather than a RAN/US fit out

Why would us Kiwis be interested in a frigate with the potential cost of US$1.2 billion (₤1 billion) when for around US$700 million we could get an AEGIS destroyer from the ROK?

 

[t68]

Why would us Kiwis be interested in a frigate with the potential cost of US$1.2 billion (₤1 billion) when for around US$700 million we could get an AEGIS destroyer from the ROK?

No final cost details have been announced in regards to T26/31, but if you think a Sejong the Great class would suit NZ great go for it!

But I do like those Inchon class corvettes and the capabilty they pack within there hull.

 

[ngatimozart]

No final cost details have been announced in regards to T26/31, but if you think a Sejong the Great class would suit NZ great go for it!

But I do like those Inchon class corvettes and the capabilty they pack within there hull.

Wasn't thinking of the Sejong class but the upcoming KDXIIA that is coming out. IIRC the upgrade of the Inchon class is the FFXII. The reason that the NZG went with the Sea Ceptor is that it doesn't require a fire control radar unlike ESSM so costs less plus it also has the ASW capability against small fast vessels. Note we didn't get Artisan radar which the RN has for the T23 / 26 / 45, nor the Excocets etc. We don't need to be in lock step with the RAN / USN.

 

[John Fedup]

No final cost details have been announced in regards to T26/3l.

The latest status report on the RN mentions a budget of £ 8 billion for 8 Type 26s. The Type 31 is just a brain fart at the moment. The Type 26 definitely has a premium price tag.