The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

Navy News October 2010

The latest addition of Navy News provides an interesting update on Wildcat. I was initially sceptical about the platform, because of its size when compared to the SeaHawk and other off-the-shelf cheaper options. The dreaded 'over-spec' issue was one I expected to see raising its ugly head at some point in the press. However the focus on swarm attack mitigation is bang-on in my opinion. If the load out is correct in the picture (24 missiles), the platform will prove a timely addition to the T23/26 operating in the Gulf. Particularly with Iran's current strategy of saturating modern vessel defence systems with large numbers of cheap fast boats firing short range missiles or acting as a self contained explosive devices similar to what the Italians attempted in WWII. The question is how many will survive SDR, if any? Also let's hope its export success rivals that of the Lynx.

Judging by the missile options, the laser beam rider could be fullfilled by StarStreak, which can be used against air, sea and land targets. I watched a recent video demonstration of the a land based vehicle Star Streak system against lightly armoured vehicles, pretty convincing. The kenetic force alone made for enviable penetration.

Also the BAE T45 programme chief admitted the latest T45 to be launched will be the heaviest yet, following modifications as a result of MOD/Navy/BAE cooperation. One assumes this is because of an increase in bulkheads or additional armouring?

The Argentine President is sabre rattling again, I'm convinced she's a 'sleeper' for the pro-RN brigade at the MOD. Her timing is perfect.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...vy-are-pirates-says-Argentinas-president.html

 

[Systems Adict]

...Also the BAE T45 programme chief admitted the latest T45 to be launched will be the heaviest yet, following modifications as a result of MOD/Navy/BAE cooperation. One assumes this is because of an increase in bulkheads or additional armouring?

One, has unfortunately assumed incorrectly.

While, some things have 'moved around' or been added to the ships since initial design, the reasoning is far simpler.

Ships are usually launched at an early stage of construction, with the larger items that can't be fitted thru hatches & 'soft patches' fitted, but not much else. They then proceed to spend 2 - 3 years being 'fitted-out'.

The original Type 45 programme had timescales that were compressed, to tie in with a drumbeat of 1 ship being delivered each year. Since then, the programme has had an additional 10% 'cut' added to it, meaning the navy will get the ships quicker.

The only way to achieve this is to actually fit more equipment at an earlier stage, thus the reasoning as to why the ship is 'heavier' or the 'heaviest at launch'.

SA

 

[AndrewMI]

Well I don't think your post supports that view at all. Just to quote again, this seems to sum up the nightmare the RN top brass are trying to inflict on the Navy:


However the Type 26 will be a relatively large (6,850 tonnes) and expensive design (about £500 million each), and the words 'up to' seem all too likely to soon appear before 'ten units', followed by 'fitted for but not with harpoon, tomahawk, [etc]'.

an unaffordable luxury for all but handful of navies. Indeed, I have severe concerns as to the wisdom of a path that seems likely to eventually deliver five or six vessels

The reluctance of the Royal Navy to buy 'second class' warships seems to set to continue to point where it is that or nothing. Similarly, the reluctance to 'buy American' or (even worse) 'European' off-the- shelf solutions will have to change [/I]

Remember we have already spent millions on this project?? What we need is 12 ships at no greater than £150m.

FYI - those are Mr Beedall's words as opposed to mine...

I do not see a problem with the T-26 Concept - high end combat ship armed with all the latest hi-tec goodies.

The timing is perhaps unfortunate, and in an ideal world a T-27 (i.e. C2) ship would quickly be based out now to keep numbers up.

To counter your point about the Admirals asking for "gold plated" type ships, I would imagine that they would take the view that whenever they order a class of ships in a decent number (say 10 or more) the numbers will be chipped away irrespective of the cost/capability and therefore it makes sense to get as high a spec as they can.

This is just hypothesising -but it may explain the situation.

 

[ASFC]

To counter your point about the Admirals asking for "gold plated" type ships, I would imagine that they would take the view that whenever they order a class of ships in a decent number (say 10 or more) the numbers will be chipped away irrespective of the cost/capability and therefore it makes sense to get as high a spec as they can.

This is just hypothesising -but it may explain the situation.

It also has something to with some very fresh memories that are still in the minds of many in the RN. Unlike other Western Navies, the RN has found out the hard way what happens when you purchase 'cheap' vessels (*cough* Type 42) and place them in harms way.

Its all very well some on here jumping up and down saying that we should buy cheap ships, but the last time we did that we went to war and lost 4 of them. Now if you factor in that not as many will be built as 40 years ago for various reasons, then you can see why it is a good idea to avoid cheap ships. You may have to spend more money in the long term going out and replacing cheap ships that you lost/ and or upgrading them to survive, so you might as well invest well now and get ships that are up to the job required of them.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Back in 1982, £120 million for a Type 42 wasn't exactly *cough* cheap. Its called inflation.

If one takes the Type 45's cost in FY82 figures, its not that much more.

 

[AndrewMI]

Back in 1982, £120 million for a Type 42 wasn't exactly *cough* cheap. Its called inflation.

If one takes the Type 45's cost in FY82 figures, its not that much more.

Out of interest how much is a T-45 in FY82 costs?

Remember that the "per unit cost" of a T45 would decrease substantially if a class of 12 were constructed. This could well make the T-45 "better" value than the T-42 (in FY82 prices....)

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Out of interest how much is a T-45 in FY82 costs?

Definitely not as much as an Arleigh Burke which in 1985 cost US$1.1b for the lead ship (which to be fair, ~$800m was the weapons cost). That still makes the Type 45 look cheap.

Remember that the "per unit cost" of a T45 would decrease substantially if a class of 12 were constructed. This could well make the T-45 "better" value than the T-42 (in FY82 prices....)

Of course if only 6 Type 45s get built for a budget of GBP6.46b (which was meant for 12), then I'd take my hat off and state thats expensive even in '82 prices. But not because its "better" value. I'd still take a burke anyday which in 2009 still costs "only" US$2.24b.

If one is going to argue getting expensive ships are better, I'm sure one can make a better argument using other examples than Type 45s which aren't exactly the most expensive (nor the most *cough* capable) either.

 

[AndrewMI]

Without wanting to get into a T-45 v Burke type discussion, I think both of these ships have relative advantages and disadvantages over each other.

The unit (marginal) cost of a Burke will be lower than a T-45 because the development costs are spread across a greater number of ships. Of course if you are carrying 96+ expensive missiles then the cost of those is certainly not to be sniffed at....

I suppose if the total cost of the T-42 programme was £120m (per ship) x 14 (no. of ships constructed) = £1.68bn in FY 82 prices.

The T-45 is roughly 1bn per ship x 6 = £6bn. That is very uncompetitive!

I think the cost of additional ships was something like £200m per unit. Spread across an additional 8 ships (to gain parity of numbers with T-42) that is a further 1.6bn. Leading to a unit cost of £542m.

Can anyone figure out what £120m in 1982 prices would be worth now?

TBH - I am not sure what the point of this is anymore!? Are we trying to work out if the T45 is a similar relative cost to the 42? Or more expensive?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

The Type 45 should be more expensive (even in 82 numbers). According to the calculator below, it is something like 282% discount back to 1982 (At £1b today = £357m in 1982, If £6.46b for 12, that makes it only £192m per ship so not that much more in my books (60% more expensive for a 44-56% larger ship.).

Historic inflation calculator: how the value of money has changed since 1900 | This is Money

Having said that, doesn't make the Type 42s non "expensive". Cost of ship construction also differed then. Cost is relative.

If I go back even earlier, the type 82s were cancelled because that was too expensive in 1972 (and that cost £24m pounds.)

Today, even a Korean KDX is built at something close to US$1b.

 

[kev 99]

Without wanting to get into a T-45 v Burke type discussion, I think both of these ships have relative advantages and disadvantages over each other.

The unit (marginal) cost of a Burke will be lower than a T-45 because the development costs are spread across a greater number of ships. Of course if you are carrying 96+ expensive missiles then the cost of those is certainly not to be sniffed at....

I suppose if the total cost of the T-42 programme was £120m (per ship) x 14 (no. of ships constructed) = £1.68bn in FY 82 prices.

The T-45 is roughly 1bn per ship x 6 = £6bn. That is very uncompetitive!

I think the cost of additional ships was something like £200m per unit. Spread across an additional 8 ships (to gain parity of numbers with T-42) that is a further 1.6bn. Leading to a unit cost of £542m.

Can anyone figure out what £120m in 1982 prices would be worth now?

TBH - I am not sure what the point of this is anymore!? Are we trying to work out if the T45 is a similar relative cost to the 42? Or more expensive?

Unit cost of additional units of T45 is officially in the £650m mark.

 

[AndrewMI]

Thanks.

So we seem to have esablished that, the T-45s are expensive, moreso than the T42s, but not by as much as commonly percieved. In return for that we have a (relativly) more advanced ship with significant growth potential.

It is not as expensive as an AEGIS ship, but then again it does lack the TacTom/Harpoon type systems that are present on most Burke and Burke derivitive designs.

I would hope that we keep our finger on the pulse with PAAMS, such as when it comes to supplement or replace the T45s we do not have to absorb the significant development costs all over again. Hopefully PAAMs can be developed like AEGIS has and future ships will be less expensive and more capable.

That said, the T45s will all be upgraded during refits. Perhaps not TacTom, but ABM defence, ship based torpedoes, HArpoon will be fitted soon enough....

 

[kev 99]

So we seem to have esablished that, the T-45s are expensive, moreso than the T42s, but not by as much as commonly percieved. In return for that we have a (relativly) more advanced ship with significant growth potential.

It is not as expensive as an AEGIS ship, but then again it does lack the TacTom/Harpoon type systems that are present on most Burke and Burke derivitive designs.

Yes it should also be significantly cheaper to run than a Burke as well since it's got significantly less crew and newer cheaper to run propulsion.

 

[ASFC]

Back in 1982, £120 million for a Type 42 wasn't exactly *cough* cheap. Its called inflation.

If one takes the Type 45's cost in FY82 figures, its not that much more.

The Batch 1 Type 42s were not built in 1982, and neither were the T45s........

So the much vaunted build price of Sheffield was not c. £20million then (in seventies prices)? Down from £25million the design was supposed to cost before they cut the Hull down?

Either way, Sheffield was commissioned without many of the systems needed to operate effectively, and when she went to war in 1982 still lacked many of them, all in the name of cost saving.

It would also be grossly unfair to compare T-26 with T-45 (just to drag this back away from T42s for one second). It took three attempts, 20 odd years and a halving of the order to get the Darings, so no wonder there was a cost blowout. With a bit of luck they will make their mind up on T-26 numbers, get the design right first time and thus avoid the fun and games surronding the T-45. I suppose I can live in hope........:roll2

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

It is not as expensive as an AEGIS ship, but then again it does lack the TacTom/Harpoon type systems that are present on most Burke and Burke derivitive designs.

Original: Not as an expensive as a burke. However when compared to ~same sized aegis destroyers like the Hobart AWDs...see what the aussies are getting for ~£1b each (and they're not even building that many AWDs ie no economies of scale).

Errata: Official docs state AWD project cost was A$8b for 3 units. That comes up to ~£1.65b each. Type 45 still cheaper.

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/oct07/hl1.cfm

 

[Systems Adict]

...However the Type 26 will be a relatively large (6,850 tonnes) and expensive design (about £500 million each), and the words 'up to' seem all too likely to soon appear before 'ten units', followed by 'fitted for but not with harpoon, tomahawk, [etc]'.

an unaffordable luxury for all but handful of navies. Indeed, I have severe concerns as to the wisdom of a path that seems likely to eventually deliver five or six vessels

The reluctance of the Royal Navy to buy 'second class' warships seems to set to continue to point where it is that or nothing. Similarly, the reluctance to 'buy American' or (even worse) 'European' off-the- shelf solutions will have to change [/I]

Remember we have already spent millions on this project?? What we need is 12 ships at no greater than £150m.

Questions...

#1. Why £150M / ship, for x12 ??

#2. Why SHOULD the RN buy 2nd hand ships ?

#3. Why should the RN buy European Manufactured ships ?

#4. What is wrong with x10 ships at approx 7,000 GRT ?

Firstly, I don't intend to answer all the questions, but I'll put forward my 'propsal' for #2.

For the RN to take a 2nd hand hull, rip out the systems that need replaced, rip out the systems that are not compatible with the rest of the UK fleet & the stores that we have, to refit the ships & make them seaworthy to a UK / RN standard, so that we get AT LEAST 15 years service out of them, is just about as expensive as building a new hull from scratch.

Yes, in times of need the UK has done a bit of 'STUFT' (Ships Taken Up From Trade), such as RFA Argus, but at what cost ?

Anyways...

The UK Govt, the manufacturer & the RN allegedly have 'an agreement' for the T-26 design that basically goes along the lines of...

1./ WE have 'X' amount of money & we want A, B, C & D fitted & want a batch of 5 ships, is this possible ? (this is for UK)

2./ We have a Hull design that is capable of fulfilling roles M, N, O, P & Q, with or without weapons systems, tell us how much money you wish to spend & we'll sit down & try to get the equipment / role you wish your ship to fulfill to fit into that cost 'window'. (this is for overseas nations / export).

We SHOULD BE happy that the 3 mains players in the UK warship triangle (Manufacturer / Govt / RN) have at last come together, sat down & looked at things with sense & logic. Early doors they've gotten together to thrash out the issues of costs & fit of equipment, while aiding the manufacturer to produce a 'template' that can be adapted to the needs of overseas clients, without too much messing about / adapation.

While it may not help the current Farago of the Carriers, it SHOULD help maintain a UK shipbuilding capability , & will (if all things fall into place),
produce the much needed overseas orders...

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


SA

 

[AndrewMI]

Original: Not as an expensive as a burke. However when compared to ~same sized aegis destroyers like the Hobart AWDs...see what the aussies are getting for ~£1b each (and they're not even building that many AWDs ie no economies of scale).

Errata: Official docs state AWD project cost was A$8b for 3 units. That comes up to ~£1.65b each. Type 45 still cheaper.

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/oct07/hl1.cfm

The problem with costs is that we do not know (we perhaps could find out but it would not be easy) what these budget figures include. does this include Missiles, through life support?

When the major part of T45 development costs was the PAAMS system, it would be suprising if a largely off the shelf design was more expensive in comparable hull numbers.

 

[AndrewMI]

SA

Is the T-26 "only" going to be 10 hulls for the RN? Do you have any info on weapons fit out as of yet?

I assume there will be a cheaper follow-up under the C-2 programme, is this still some way off as this may have better export potential.

 

[Systems Adict]

SA

Is the T-26 "only" going to be 10 hulls for the RN? Do you have any info on weapons fit out as of yet?

I assume there will be a cheaper follow-up under the C-2 programme, is this still some way off as this may have better export potential.

Andrew, while I work within the defence industry in the UK, I don't have a crystal ball & am not working on this project / programme, so like everyone else, I can only speculate & guess !

This said, there are lots of places on t'interweb that have similar source detail / carry the same facts. As the project is still in it's inital design phase, it's fair to say that some of the facts will be pretty 'solid', while others might be dependant on financial constraints, or technological advances.

As had been discussed in depth on this forum, the main gun is one point of contention. Some have stated that a 5 Inch gun will be fitted, while others are argued that it's not feasable (at this time due to the lack of suitable equipment), so a 4.5 Inch, MOD1 will be the way ahead.

So, until the SDSR / Financial Crisis / Main Gate acceptance phase of the design has been completed, YOUR guess is as good as mine...

Anyways, here's some links to look at for ideas...

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Surface_Combatant"]Future Surface Combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:HMS_Chatham_(F87).jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/HMS_Chatham_%28F87%29.jpg/220px-HMS_Chatham_%28F87%29.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/e/e8/HMS_Chatham_%28F87%29.jpg/220px-HMS_Chatham_%28F87%29.jpg[/ame]

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Contract signed for Assessment Phase of Navy's next warships

More Details on Type 26 | Think Defence

Information Dissemination: Future Surface Combatant at DSEi 2009

SA :rel

 

[Systems Adict]

Without wanting to get into a T-45 v Burke type discussion, I think both of these ships have relative advantages and disadvantages over each other.

The unit (marginal) cost of a Burke will be lower than a T-45 because the development costs are spread across a greater number of ships. Of course if you are carrying 96+ expensive missiles then the cost of those is certainly not to be sniffed at....

Hmmm...

I had a quick think about this (unfortunately it's kinda T45 vs Burke), trawlled a few sites I regularly visit & found this article, which does direct comparrisons of US / UK prices for equipment. It makes some interesting reading...

Grand Logistics: Warship Costs


SA

 

[swerve]

#2. Why SHOULD the RN buy 2nd hand ships ?...

For the RN to take a 2nd hand hull, rip out the systems that need replaced, rip out the systems that are not compatible with the rest of the UK fleet & the stores that we have, to refit the ships & make them seaworthy to a UK / RN standard, so that we get AT LEAST 15 years service out of them, is just about as expensive as building a new hull from scratch....

SA

Err . . . he didn't say second hand, he said 'second class'. In quotes.