The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[AndrewMI]

BBC News - BAE wins £127m contract to design Navy warship

BAE wins £127m contract to design Navy warship

The new "combat ship" will eventually replace frigates like HMS Boxer
The Ministry of Defence has announced plans to spend £127m to design a new warship for the Royal Navy.

The four-year contract to develop a design for a new frigate, the Type 26, has been won by BAE Systems.

BAE was also given the go-ahead to start building the latest Astute Class nuclear submarine in Barrow-in-Furness.

The government says the new vessels will help to give the navy "cutting edge capabilities" while safeguarding the UK defence industry.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has confirmed the contract in spite of the £700m worth of efficiency savings it has promised to make as part of the government's overall spending cuts.

The Type 26 will be a frigate, like the Types 22 and 23 it will replace. But the Ministry of Defence refers to it as a "combat ship" because it will be expected to be more flexible than its predecessors.

'Navy workhorse'

An MOD spokesperson called it "the workhorse of the navy". In addition to being used in anti-submarine warfare, the Type 26 will be expected to provide support for land operations, carry out surveillance, intelligence, counter-terrorism and piracy operations and help with disaster relief and humanitarian aid projects.

Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, said he had also agreed for BAE to start building the fifth of a planned seven Astute Class submarines in Barrow-in-Furness in the north-west of England, and begin procurement for the sixth.

The contract is worth £300m to BAE. Mr Ainsworth said programmes like the Type 26 and Astute "not only ensure the Royal Navy continues to have cutting edge capability but also sustain the industry that supports them".

The Astute Class are "next generation" nuclear-powered submarines, described by the MOD as "the biggest and most advanced attack submarines ever ordered for the Royal Navy".

BAE's website, which describes the Astute as an "underwater hunter-killer", says it will undertake a range of tasks including intelligence gathering, Special Forces and anti-submarine warfare.

The company says Astute has greater weapons and operations capabilities and improved communications facilities compared to existing submarines. Armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, BAE says, it can strike at targets up to 2,000km from Britain's coast.

 

[AndrewMI]

Green Light To Develop Next Generation of Royal Navy Warships - BAE Systems

Green Light To Develop Next Generation of Royal Navy Warships25 Mar 2010 | Ref. 064/2010

Type 26 Combat Ship Concept Design
Portsmouth, United Kingdom: BAE Systems has been awarded a four year £127 million contract by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to take forward the programme to develop a new generation of combat ships for the Royal Navy.

The announcement comes as the Royal Navy has revealed that the first ships to be developed under the Future Surface Combatant programme will be known as the Type 26 class. Designed to replace the existing Type 22 and Type 23 frigates, Type 26 will deliver a versatile, affordable capability that can be easily upgraded to ensure it remains at the cutting-edge throughout its service life. Under the contract, BAE Systems will work in a joint team with the MOD to assess options from the initial concept design in order to develop a detailed specification ready for manufacture.

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said: “Planning for future Defence is crucial. It is our duty to provide key equipment that will ensure the UK is properly prepared to meet its own Defence needs in an ever changing world, and continue to play an important role in maintaining global security. Programmes like the Type 26 not only ensure the Royal Navy continues to have cutting edge capability but also sustain the industry that supports them. The commitments the MOD has made will protect skills and employment, and preserve the industrial capability needed to carry out future programmes efficiently, in a way that represents value for money.”

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said: "These programme announcements are welcome news for the Navy. You simply cannot have an effective Navy without capable Frigates, and the Type 26 combat ship will form the future backbone of the Royal Navy’s surface combatant force, alongside the new Type 45 Destroyers. These ships will be highly versatile, able to operate across the full spectrum of operations, from war fighting to disaster relief.”

Alan Johnston, Managing Director of BAE Systems Surface Ships, said: “This is an exciting step in a programme that is hugely important not only for the Royal Navy but for the whole of the UK maritime industry.

“Type 26 is a key component in sustaining a surface warship capability in UK industry as agreed under the Terms of Business Agreement we signed with the MOD last year. Working in close partnership with the MOD and industry will help to reduce risk and deliver better value for UK taxpayers. It represents a real step change in procurement for defence.”

An 80 strong joint MOD and BAE Systems team has already been established out of Bristol and this will rise to 300 over the next four years, bringing together expertise in all aspects of warship engineering to complete the assessment phase. The first task of the team is to evaluate the main options including capability, operational availability of the ships, exportability features and support optimisation. The programme is also timed to address outputs from the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review so that changes to policy will be reflected in the final ship design, ensuring that Type 26 delivers the right capability to support future UK defence.

Type 26 is the first of two classes of ships to be built under the Future Surface Combatant programme, delivering enhanced anti-submarine warfare capability and enabling a more agile response to a wide range of threats and emergency situations. Both variants will be developed with their potential for export factored into the design from the outset, with the aim of securing overseas orders to spread non-recurring costs and reduce the cost per ship to deliver better value for the MOD and UK taxpayers. This approach will also provide a platform to showcase the capability within the UK maritime supply chain, helping to secure the UK’s long-term future at the forefront of the global maritime industry.

The first of the new class is due to enter service around the start of the next decade and by the 2030s around half of frontline Royal Navy personnel are expected to operate on a either a Type 26 or the second variant to be developed under this programme.

 

[Troothsayer]

Type 26 'Combat Ship' eh?

Is that a wise designation with a penny pinching Treasury in the background!?

 

[kev 99]

Also news about Astutes 5 and 6:

UK Government Go-Ahead for Fifth and Sixth Astute Submarines

25 Mar 2010 | Ref. 065/2010

Astute Exits Barrow

Astute Exits Barrow

Barrow-in-Furness, United Kingdom: BAE Systems today welcomed news it had been given the go-ahead to begin constructing the fifth Astute class submarine and start the procurement process for a sixth vessel.

It follows a statement made earlier today by UK Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth, in which he underlined the Government’s continuing support for the Astute programme.

The first of class Astute attack submarine is currently undertaking sea trials, the second (Ambush) is due to be launched later this year, and the third and fourth (Artful and Audacious) are both advanced in their construction.

The Secretary of State said: “The Government has made a contractual commitment to proceed with the initial build of Astute Boat 5 and long lead procurement activities associated with Astute Boat 6, at a total cost of over £300M. This commitment is necessary now to ensure a consistent workload for the UK’s submarine building industry.

“This investment will allow the timely delivery of the Astute class boats, which are the most advanced attack submarines ever ordered for the Royal Navy. Furthermore, since the same industrial skills, experience and capability are necessary to deliver the successor deterrent submarine programme, this investment will play a part in ensuring a smooth transition from the Astute programme to the successor deterrent.”

John Hudson, Managing Director of BAE Systems, Submarine Solutions commented: “I am delighted the Government has reaffirmed its commitment to the submarine programme today. This order represents a key milestone in the overall Astute class submarine programme, and underlines the Government’s confidence in BAE Systems’ ability to deliver an advanced submarine capability for the Royal Navy.

“The commitment to the successor programme will allow BAE Systems to continue to recruit highly-skilled engineers to meet existing and future workload requirements, and progress the concept design work. Just as importantly, it will help sustain key skills and capabilities throughout our workforce, our suppliers and partners.

“The 7,400 tonne submarines will be the fifth and sixth of what is expected to be a seven boat Astute class, the largest and most powerful attack submarines ever built in Britain for the Royal Navy. The Astute class will replace the Swiftsure and Trafalgar class, which have been in-service since the 1970s and 1980s respectively.

Work is expected to start immediately at the shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness.

The first of class Astute submarine successfully completed its first phase of sea trials having left Barrow for its operational base in Faslane in November 2009. The programme of sea trials continues, including a successful first at-sea dive off the coast of Scotland.

Test and commissioning of second in class Ambush continues ahead of its scheduled launch later this year. The command deck module – the largest of the boat’s modules - has been shipped into third in class Artful, successfully completing one of the boat’s 2010 milestones. Construction of major steelwork for fourth in class Audacious continues after its keel was laid in 2009.

Also link to image for T26 on BAE website, it's basically a better image of the ship that has been doing the rounds:

http://www.baesystems.com/static/bae_cimg_Type26_concept_4_latestReleased_bae_cimg_Type26_concept_4_Web.jpg

 

[Neutral Zone]

That's great news about the Type 26's. Is there any word as to what the class name will be?

 

[AndrewMI]

T-26

Interesting ideas. I think there is a fair idea of what the ship needs to be capable of doing, and a lot of these things (support for land ops, humanitarian, high end war fighter, flexibility in future) point to the ship size being fairly large. IMO - i think it could be of similar size to the T-45.

We know the "Batch1" will consist of 6 ships. and in total, 18 more ships falling under the FSC umbrella could be produced - 24 in total (going on past this means 18 at most).

Quite what the capability and initial armament of these will be remains to be seen - they are spending several hundred million on this though it seems....



Astute

Good news on boats 5 and 6. It looks highly likely that 7 will be the total amount in the class. Depending on gaps between Astute and SSBN(R) BAE may offer an 8th at a good price to keep people in work. I think they were talking of modernising a couple of the Trafalgar class subs to keep them in service for a while longer?

What i think is the most sensible industrial strategy on thes boats, is for the Astte design to be worked upon and developed further in the intervening period between astute boat 7/8 and the end of the SSBN(R) programme. Working on the assumption there will not be any revolutionary technological breakthroughs in this period (e.g. new propulsion system, new hull material capable of great depth) the basic design is fine and any improvements will be in sensors (e.g. wide apeture array) or new weapons (e.g. potential submarine SAM system). Other improvements in quietening, comport, snags etc can be worked out through experience operating the boats.

The next "batch" of improved astute can then be moved onto immediately folowing the construction of SSBN(R) number 4.

 

[1805]

Define "Gold Plating"?

Not sure i understand...

By gold plating I mean, pushing technology to the highest degree possible, and over specifying. In comparsion to say the French who appear to apply a 80/20 approach, i.e. working on the view that 80% of the value comes from 20% of the effort, not quite that in defence terms. An example might be using Tornado/Typhoon over Afganistan.

Had the RN built a undated replacement for the Ts a logical development fit for role instead of the far more capable Astute they may have afforded more. Or worst still the programme becomes so expensive because the goals were to high, it gets cancelled or cut down so becomes less capable than had it been designed to more realistic objectives (ie we brought the carrier now we can't afford the planes, not a good example as the extra steel wouldn't cover many F35bs! But you could say building two at once is a better example the USN doesn't even do that. You have to delay adding to the cost..just pure waste.

T45 is the same (although there is an argument we would only ever get 6 regardless). The Engine on the T45 are a very good example the WR21 is very expensive.

The CVs are the same a c40-50 air group would be a huge advance in capability, why did we go for 65,000t, (I know steal is cheap but it is not free and needs more expensive engines). By pure luck the economic climate changed after the ships were ordered had they been later I sure there would have been a greater risk of cancellation. If we had built a slower say 25 knot 50,000t now or actually 4 years ago, kept an Invincible, then built another say 2018 and maybe even a third in 2030 (a complement of 20 F35c and say 20 Goshawk/Hawk 200 derived light attack each.

The gold plating in RN designs makes them unattractive (expensive and late) and has been a big factor in no major export orders. It does not even mean we have great capability because we end up with less numbers.

 

[swerve]

By gold plating I mean, pushing technology to the highest degree possible, and over specifying. In comparsion to say the French who appear to apply a 80/20 approach, i.e. working on the view that 80% of the value comes from 20% of the effort, not quite that in defence terms. An example might be using Tornado/Typhoon over Afganistan....

The CVs are the same a c40-50 air group would be a huge advance in capability, why did we go for 65,000t, (I know steal is cheap but it is not free and needs more expensive engines). ....

The French have used Rafale in Afghanistan.

Charles de Gaulle is pretty gold-plated, using a complicated, expensive & space & weight-using stabilisation system to make a 40000 ton ship behave like a larger one, & thus overcome one disadvantage of it being smaller (a problem CVF won't have, & one reason it's the size it is), because the nuclear (gold-plated!) propulsion chosen didn't provide enough power for a larger ship, & adding reactors to overcome that problem would have necessitated a much larger - & therefore prohibitively expensive - ship.

Then the French went for a (gold-plated) PESA radar pending affordable AESAs, instead of sticking with a mechanically-scanned radar for the time being.

I could go on . . .

 

[kev 99]

I could go on . . .

I wouldn't bother, to be honest I think he's just on the wind up; it would certainly explain why every decision the RN has made in the last 30 or 40 appears to be wrong, and the reasons for them being made in the first place get conveniently ignored.

The bit about the Astute's being a upgraded T class boat is amusing, since that's what they were intended to be in the first place only for the programme to be suspended as unaffordable.

 

[1805]

The French have used Rafale in Afghanistan.

Charles de Gaulle is pretty gold-plated, using a complicated, expensive & space & weight-using stabilisation system to make a 40000 ton ship behave like a larger one, & thus overcome one disadvantage of it being smaller (a problem CVF won't have, & one reason it's the size it is), because the nuclear (gold-plated!) propulsion chosen didn't provide enough power for a larger ship, & adding reactors to overcome that problem would have necessitated a much larger - & therefore prohibitively expensive - ship.

Then the French went for a (gold-plated) PESA radar pending affordable AESAs, instead of sticking with a mechanically-scanned radar for the time being.

I could go on . . .

Your completely right on the Charles de Gaulle, the RN is not the only navy to gold plate, the USN probably being the worst offender. But you must admit gold plating is a bit of an issue in the MOD generally.

 

[1805]

I wouldn't bother, to be honest I think he's just on the wind up; it would certainly explain why every decision the RN has made in the last 30 or 40 appears to be wrong, and the reasons for them being made in the first place get conveniently ignored.

The bit about the Astute's being a upgraded T class boat is amusing, since that's what they were intended to be in the first place only for the programme to be suspended as unaffordable.

I am not winding anyone up, but there were some silly ideas being put forward like building SSGN as a follow on from SSBN to keep yards busy. The RN gets a lot right but the reason I focus on the things that could have done better is because it is more interesting. Much of this is with hindsight but there is learning from studying the past. It does not make me very happy to see the RN facing cuts when it barely has enough ships to do the tasked asked off it at present.

I could go on that the RN developed angled decks, steam cats, deck edge mirrors, first with big Gas Ts, MATCH as against that USN UAV flop. But you all know that. Don't make it personal to discredit a view. You effectively said yourself we have a serious problem with SSN/SSBN production in the long time.

 

[rnrp]

1805 What example of gold plating are you going on about?

Could it be the following:Build and use Ocean which was a huge capability enhancer, even after paying Rockwell Collins to block the path of her Link 11 to the transmitter even though it would have cost NOTHNG to leave her with a transmit capability.

Or replace 1022 with say SPS52C which would have been a lot better for the enviroment of the NAG which is where it has been used mostly, no well stick with 1022.

Or buy CEC which was trialed in the Portland Exas IN 1999 between Northumberland and Gloucester in an exceptional hostile EW enviroment, by the way it worked allowing a confirmed Seadart engagement, but would have cost an exceptional amount of cash. Do we have this gold plated bit of kit? NO.

Or maybe buy an updated Rubis instead of Astute and be happy to send or Submariners up against Akulas and tracking Bory class SSBN

Oh and by the way WR21 may be expensive but its liinked to an electric propulsion system that has cut the cost of fuel usage, ask the Americans why Makin Island is cheaper to run on LM2500 than on a traditional steam plant. UK was at cutting edge of electric propulsion with the Wave Class and it has evolved since then.

Have you any maritime background?

 

[kev 99]

There's nothing wrong with studying the past, it becomes wrong and starts to look like a windup when its done selectively and when the reasons for decisions are ignored.

On a day when the MOD has just signed a contract for the design of the FSC, and its been announced that work will soon start on Astute number 5 and the go ahead has been given for long lead items on boat 6, you're on here focusing on the negative again without a single word about all this rather good news.

I'm not the first person to acuse you of this on here, I wonder why.

 

[1805]

1805 What example of gold plating are you going on about?

Could it be the following:Build and use Ocean which was a huge capability enhancer, even after paying Rockwell Collins to block the path of her Link 11 to the transmitter even though it would have cost NOTHNG to leave her with a transmit capability.

Or replace 1022 with say SPS52C which would have been a lot better for the enviroment of the NAG which is where it has been used mostly, no well stick with 1022.

Or buy CEC which was trialed in the Portland Exas IN 1999 between Northumberland and Gloucester in an exceptional hostile EW enviroment, by the way it worked allowing a confirmed Seadart engagement, but would have cost an exceptional amount of cash. Do we have this gold plated bit of kit? NO.

Or maybe buy an updated Rubis instead of Astute and be happy to send or Submariners up against Akulas and tracking Bory class SSBN

Oh and by the way WR21 may be expensive but its liinked to an electric propulsion system that has cut the cost of fuel usage, ask the Americans why Makin Island is cheaper to run on LM2500 than on a traditional steam plant. UK was at cutting edge of electric propulsion with the Wave Class and it has evolved since then.

Have you any maritime background?

Are you saying you can't find any examples of Gold Plating? Looks this is very simple unit cost x number = must equal budget. If you over spec you get less, in some cases this maybe worth it, in others it is not. Gold Plating can also harm our forces take the T45 the delay has created a window of capability. I know these views are not popular in here but they are far more accepted outside. Now do you think the Defence budget will go up, go down or stay the same, and if it is cut who is going to share the brunt (Not what you want what you think will happen)? We have a problem but now on acknowledges it. Not much good having a 65,000t carrier if it gets sold (mind I agree I think unlikely)?

 

[rnrp]

In reality the T45 has led to a capability gap because succesive Governments have failed to replace the 42s, as well as going down the Horizon route. Im no fool so please don`t TAKE ME FOR ONE.

Whoever is in Downing St after May 6 the reality of defence budget cuts WILL be a reality!

What matters is funding equipment and operations correctly, which I think you you will agree should be happening, but hasn`t happened whichever party has been in power.

The SDR will probably be used for yet more defence cuts and if so the people in power should have the courage of their convictions and if the defence budget cant afford to pay for Op Herrick then bring the armed forces home and do what af ew European nations have done and sit on their backsides.

 

[1805]

There's nothing wrong with studying the past, it becomes wrong and starts to look like a windup when its done selectively and when the reasons for decisions are ignored.

On a day when the MOD has just signed a contract for the design of the FSC, and its been announced that work will soon start on Astute number 5 and the go ahead has been given for long lead items on boat 6, you're on here focusing on the negative again without a single word about all this rather good news.

I'm not the first person to acuse you of this on here, I wonder why.

I genuinely am sorry if it came over negatively. I was very aware that there was a very positive mood in the room. So I only responded to some wild comments. I like everyone in this room cares a great deal for the RN. However I am doubtful of comments made by any party before an election. The long lead items on the 7th Astute is very positive news.

My views are sometimes not popular in this room, but this room obviously has a very naval focused membership, they are not reflective on the general view of the population or politicans.

 

[1805]

In reality the T45 has led to a capability gap because succesive Governments have failed to replace the 42s, as well as going down the Horizon route. Im no fool so please don`t TAKE ME FOR ONE.

Whoever is in Downing St after May 6 the reality of defence budget cuts WILL be a reality!

What matters is funding equipment and operations correctly, which I think you you will agree should be happening, but hasn`t happened whichever party has been in power.

The SDR will probably be used for yet more defence cuts and if so the people in power should have the courage of their convictions and if the defence budget cant afford to pay for Op Herrick then bring the armed forces home and do what af ew European nations have done and sit on their backsides.

I don't agree the UK armed forces are under funded in totality, and outside this room you would get little support for an increase in the current situation. Your probably right about cutting back on wars, I don't think we will lightly do another Iraq. But other nations with far smaller budgets have got satisfactory kit in services faster and in proportionate terms greater quantities. The F100 v T45 debate has been covered in great detail, but you can't say that a smaller 2nd tier Navy has not got a similar number of ships faster than the RN (and so attractive they have sold the design to two other Navies}. Before anyone starts on the merrits of the two I accept completely the T45 will be more capable in most respect.

 

[Systems Adict]

My views are sometimes not popular in this room, but this room obviously has a very naval focused membership, they are not reflective on the general view of the population or politicans.

Harumph....

As someone who's worked in the Defence Industry over the best part of the last 20 yrs, I've seen time & again the difference between "Gold Plating" & necessisity.

...& I've seen the aftermath following the "good ideas club" & the 'let's go down the COTS / commercial contract route.

The number of times projects look like a good idea, until someone with common sense steps in & brings out a copy of Military Def-Stan's, NMER's, BR's & NES's.

We are talking about MILITARY / NAVAL vessels, not cruise liners.

The so called "Gold Plating" is purely the cost that HAS to be paid to ensure that our Military has the RIGHT equipment to do the RIGHT job.

I'm not condoning project / cost over runs, but this is part of the nature of the business, the joys of Govt planning / demands & trying to get the best, as quickly as we can, which wrt the compression of the design/review/build phase of projects, is what we're gonna have to expect as 'the norm'...

Thoughts ... ?

SA

 

[harryriedl]

1805 What example of gold plating are you going on about?

Could it be the following:Build and use Ocean which was a huge capability enhancer, even after paying Rockwell Collins to block the path of her Link 11 to the transmitter even though it would have cost NOTHNG to leave her with a transmit capability.

Or replace 1022 with say SPS52C which would have been a lot better for the enviroment of the NAG which is where it has been used mostly, no well stick with 1022.

Or buy CEC which was trialed in the Portland Exas IN 1999 between Northumberland and Gloucester in an exceptional hostile EW enviroment, by the way it worked allowing a confirmed Seadart engagement, but would have cost an exceptional amount of cash. Do we have this gold plated bit of kit? NO.

Or maybe buy an updated Rubis instead of Astute and be happy to send or Submariners up against Akulas and tracking Bory class SSBN

Oh and by the way WR21 may be expensive but its liinked to an electric propulsion system that has cut the cost of fuel usage, ask the Americans why Makin Island is cheaper to run on LM2500 than on a traditional steam plant. UK was at cutting edge of electric propulsion with the Wave Class and it has evolved since then.

Have you any maritime background?

My small imput on the Gold plating the UK was for a very very long time was notorious for the lack of gold plating the kit the UK was issued with, their are many many examples so give a few the Batch 1 T-42 had 10 meters chopped of them due to expense and a substandard radar because of cost. The cosnate rebuilding of ships(carriers to Frigates) is a debatable aspect of the non gold plated aspect in UK procurement. This has been similar in the other branches such as the pathetic boots issued until post Falklands which were a WW1 design and totally inadequate. The UK past for under equipping has cost lives be aware im not blaming them for those decisions but aware of them. In these times their has been an opposite view of spending more per unit for more ability hence the very snazzy Astute's T-45's and CVF's this is reflected in both Army and Air force army in their procurement I think it just a change of perspective

 

[1805]

Harumph....

As someone who's worked in the Defence Industry over the best part of the last 20 yrs, I've seen time & again the difference between "Gold Plating" & necessisity.

...& I've seen the aftermath following the "good ideas club" & the 'let's go down the COTS / commercial contract route.

The number of times projects look like a good idea, until someone with common sense steps in & brings out a copy of Military Def-Stan's, NMER's, BR's & NES's.

We are talking about MILITARY / NAVAL vessels, not cruise liners.

The so called "Gold Plating" is purely the cost that HAS to be paid to ensure that our Military has the RIGHT equipment to do the RIGHT job.

I'm not condoning project / cost over runs, but this is part of the nature of the business, the joys of Govt planning / demands & trying to get the best, as quickly as we can, which wrt the compression of the design/review/build phase of projects, is what we're gonna have to expect as 'the norm'...

Thoughts ... ?

SA

I'm not saying skimp on standards, but don't go overboard on specification. I think if you have a budget work to it, allowing margins for error considering the nature of advance weapons systems. But to go from 75 Harriers to 138 F35bs is a huge jump in capability. particularly when you think 1 F35 v 1 Harrier is a huge leap in capability on its own. To then order 2 65,000 CVs to carry them only slightly staggered when you know there are budget problems (even before the recession) is not the Politican's fault (I hate to defend them). I don't think this approach to cancelling/delaying building, expensive kit which is uncompetitive for export is popular with the manufaturers either.

One of the problems is that a life at sea is probably not necessarily the best training for truly massive procurement projects sometimes of staggering complexity. Combine with budget constraints and the need to keep key strategic industries going. And i acknowledge it is easy to be clever from the sidelines!