The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Two hundred and fifty million pounds, does anyone really believe this is realistic? Surely a bare bones T26 won’t be much more than whatever T31 candidate emerges and will have at least as much UK content, be more capable, and perhaps more importantly be upgradeable to a full T26!

I think the UK PLC needs to take a very large 'chill-pill' on price.

While £250m is a fair lump, UK RN lives by the motto "Champagne Lifestyle on Lemonade wages". I'm pretty sure that everyone taking part has stated that steel is cheap & air is free, but IF UK RN wants to get the ship they're asking for, you'll need to do better than £250m.

T26 has so much complexity & overheads built into it from the get-go. The fact that the initial design phase of the project has been running since about 2010, with contracts only being placed in 2016 (after a 'slow-down' in the design at the customers request), these are all things that add to the overall costs. I'm sure that the difference in cost between batch 1 & batch 2 will be significantly lower, as the gremlins are all worked out, but I still foresee them being circa double the costs quoted in the 1st line of this paragraph !

UK RN & the Admiralty as a whole has the problem that they only have so many hulls, so many bodies & so much funds to do everything. T31 is supposed to be a GP Frigate, NOT a T26, so having a big mission bay, or using the T26 hull form may have made sense if we were building the x2 ship designs alternately on the same 'production line', but with UK PLC stating that they want the first ship in the water by 2023 (the same time as T26), they are on a hiding to nothing, especially if they are being built in sections & assembled elsewhere, so not to be under the control of BAE.

Other Naval manufacturers across the globe usually sit down with the client navy, discuss key points about equipment / hull-form, etc. that the sovereign state wants, agree a fixed price & then accept the ship several years later once it's been completed & tested. ANY changes are deemed as extras & have to be paid for accordingly, over & above the original spec. price.

UK manufacturers have always had to deal with a navy that is sat on their shoulder, making changes constantly & then starts blaming the Industry for the delays (Carrier Alliance & the Cats & Traps / E-MALS fiasco being point of fact).

The fact that T31 is supposed to be a GP frigate, should mean that it is close to, but not exactly a single-role piece of equipment. GP (General Purpose), doesn't mean chop/change/adapt/fit new modular equipment every 2 mins, but that the ship is a tool box that contains all the equipment needed to do that task (whatever the task is), with little alternation.

As for size / costs, T26 is almost as large as T45 probably somewhere in the 5 - 7000 GRT weight range, T31 is expected to probably be no more than 4000 GRT. & while it may look to the layman that a stripped T26 is a T31, the reality is that we're not comparing apples with apples, as the hull design / equipment spec / range & capability are very different.

Finally, there's the legislative & regulatory aspects that UK PLC demands (which is often over & above what other countries agree with the supplier, or have in place). The demands to have certain fit & finish means that additional cost is built in, due to the numerous tests / trials & 'provenance' of the paper-trail that links back to specific specifications for equipment.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Read the blurb, read the comments attached to the webpage.

Questions:

IF UK PLC has stated that the ship has to come in at <£250m, WHY would they accept a ship that will cost <£400m ?

The x3 consortiums will have put their bid-tenders into UK PLC, so why are two public knowledge, but the 3rd has basically given the scantest of information ?

With UK PLC looking to make cost savings to be able to pay for equipment, why would they accept a bid that doesn't provide equipment / system commonality with current fleet equipment ? In turn, how much will competitors charge to facilitate this, as I'm pretty certain that some of the companies involved will state "This is what we're offering, if you want it changes, it will cost 'X' !
I agree that there are unanswered questions, but I am not surprised at the companies approach given UK defence procurement in recent times. So my questions are:
  • Is the Type 31e requirement realistic for £250m (US$330m, AU$465m, CAN$440m, NZ$480m) per ship?
  • Will the Type 31e actually progress beyond the design stage?
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I agree that there are unanswered questions, but I am not surprised at the companies approach given UK defence procurement in recent times. So my questions are:
  • Is the Type 31e requirement realistic for £250m (US$330m, AU$465m, CAN$440m, NZ$480m) per ship?
  • Will the Type 31e actually progress beyond the design stage?
Perhaps the first question should have been, “what is the CONOPS leading to what levels of lethality and survivability are deemed minimal”?
If they are not to be used for TG ops as stated, why are they being built when there’s such a shortage of resources?
OPVs and Corvettes can do the simple stuff.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The problem with all 4 of the above jokes is they are just to unbelievable, April Fool Jokes need to be more subtle. Something along the lines of, a secret report has been leaked that if Labour gains power in the next Election the HMS Prince of Wales will be sold to the EU as FS of a new European Carrier group.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
It appears that the UK SECDEF is keen on these "Ironman"suits for jolly jacks to bring out their deeply held Lord Nelson DNA for boarding ships at sea.

Sailors with Iron Man suits ambushing enemy ships? British defence secretary likes the idea

Wouldn't fancy doing a "man overboard" exercise if you were wearing one of those - although I suspect if you're wearing a plate carrier and a dozen mags plus side arm and rifle, you'd still be struggling to tread water.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Wouldn't fancy doing a "man overboard" exercise if you were wearing one of those - although I suspect if you're wearing a plate carrier and a dozen mags plus side arm and rifle, you'd still be struggling to tread water.
LOL, I just have trouble with images of them trying to swing from the yard arms on to the enemies decks cutlasses ablaze :Do_O
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
you didn't miss anything much to be honest - I'm not sure if something like an assisted Exo or similar would work well inside the ship - the jet pack part would be pretty cool to watch but the practicalities start stacking against you on touch down I suspect.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
Perhaps the first question should have been, “what is the CONOPS leading to what levels of lethality and survivability are deemed minimal”?
If they are not to be used for TG ops as stated, why are they being built when there’s such a shortage of resources?
OPVs and Corvettes can do the simple stuff.
I think you have to look at type 31e in then UK context as a very large OPV, that’s the sort of jobs she will be doing. They are going to be based outside of the UK with minimal maintenance requirements, they won’t be dry-docked during there service unless absolutely necessary.

The plans I’ve heard at two different workshops is the vessels won’t be in service for long, ten years then flogged off, either in there current state or will be modified to whatever spec the new operator wants. They are going to build a lot more than 5 vessels if they get it right. This is also why I think Arrowhead has to win, it is a far more flexible vessel with significantly more potential than Leander. Leander is an upsized Corvette, Arrowhead is a frigate.
 
Top