t68
Well-Known Member
That's the whole point T26 is meant to be a flexabile design for export potential dosnt mean you need a carbon copy of the UK vessel, hence my post about UK centric systems
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I'd say it is waaay to early to pick a winner, which means we can enjoy at least half a decade of spirited debate on this forum.
My odds, plucked randomly from the air, are that there's a 50% chance we will get whatever the Australians build as an ANZAC replacement. Unless it is clearly a total dogs breakfast.
I'd say there is a 25% chance we'll get something from Asia (almost certainly ROK) and 25% chance we'll go British.
Of course, if the Aussies pick the T26, and we get the same hull built in a Korean yard, that would be 50% + 25% + 25%. Why, it's practically a dead cert!
Interesting. The other adaption I think that would be interesting would be using it as a shipboard AEW&C. There are AESAs that can be fitted to helos so it's not so left field. It would beat any helo for, speed, height and range.
That's total program costs not the unit price - so there's infrastructure and all sorts chucked into that total. It's true that the Type 26 looks high end for the Kiwi requirements however.
That's what many forget, it costs a lot more to kick off a project, even to build an existing design at a new location, let alone a new design, than it does to build additional ships once the yard is up to speed. This is common knowledge for anyone with even the slightest background in engineering, let alone shipbuilding, which is why it amazes me that we see situations like this where thirteen ships to a common design becomes eight and then is continually delayed because the cost has gone up too much.
Just like the Darings, twelve becomes eight, then six, but the once off costs still need to be amortised, driving up unit cost. In the case of the Darings this was made worse by the opportunity cost of not being able to develop a Batch II design without the propulsion issues that became apparent with the initial ships, then of not having sufficient work to keep the yards busy until the Type 26 came online.
Absolutely right, & in this case the whole clusterf**k is made even more unbelievable by the fact that the contract which has made it financially sensible to build the new OPVs was put in place because the problem of discontinuity putting up costs was recognised, & so the MoD committed itself to a steady building programme, enforced by a contract which meant it spent the money even if it didn't order the ships, just to make sure it'd order them. And then it didn't. 
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This is sort of similar to our situation. The AOPS is sort of a make work program (albeit a needed asset) to develop some skills and keep people in place until the CSC starts. IIRC, Irving has invested many hundreds of millions getting ready for the AOPS and hopefully the experience gets them ready for the CSC build. If Canada accepts the Type 26 design, what other infrastructure investments would be required?
Even assuming a £ 1 billion cost per ship (which includes U.K. infrastructure costs), the CDN price works out to $1.6 billion. The old budget number is $26 billion CDN for 15 ships. Reports now say the cost has ballooned to $30-40 billion. The only way to explain this huge surcharge is for RCN add-ones and Canadian content for these vessels or greed on the part of Irving. Either way, it needs to be sorted.
Even assuming a £ 1 billion cost per ship (which includes U.K. infrastructure costs), the CDN price works out to $1.6 billion. The old budget number is $26 billion CDN for 15 ships. Reports now say the cost has ballooned to $30-40 billion. The only way to explain this huge surcharge is for RCN add-ones and Canadian content for these vessels or greed on the part of Irving. Either way, it needs to be sorted.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Do you really see Type 26 as a potential option for Canada? It's unproven and the systems as planned are all UK based. The redesign to American systems and weapons would be utterly cost prohibitive. Ahhhh. That's it. Big engineering costs to Canadianize them would benefit Irving and other Canadian companies. So much for value for taxpayers treasure.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I have no idea. If you read one of my earlier links, one mentioned the requirement of listing all the bolts, rivets, fasteners, etc. needed for construction (Hard to believe this). As no Type 26 has been constructed that will be a stretch for BAE! Another quote mentioned the need to keep up with a US carrier battlegroup. As for the fitting of US kit, this would be problematic for the FREMM and F-125 too. Navantia may have the edge here assuming anything from BIW will be way too much ship and cost. It will be interesting to see what specs actually get out into the public domain.
Do you not think that the whole point of Canada looking at GCS, is to get the Canadian shipyards to bring their 'A' Game ? A sort of 'competition, so that the likes of Irving try to ensure that THEY provide the design...?
...Or is it maybe because THEIR costs are so high, that GCS seems a better option ?
Additionally, while Type 26 is UK specific, the idea behind GCS is that the relevant governments look at what THEY would like (weapons fit that they currently have, or NEW equipment that they see as a game changer for the fleet).
Like any NEW system there are associated costs of acquisition, which increase the overall cost of the platform.
A key fact to remember is that the MAJORITY of the weapons systems used on Naval platforms across the world are upgrades or developments of equipment originally designed & built in the 60's & 70's. The NEW technologies that are being built into platforms are the command / combat computer system, the Radars & the propulsion & platform control systems.
Many of the new platforms that have been designed & built over the last 10 years have integrated technology so that similar sized & capable platforms can be operated & ran by FEWER sailors, and THAT is probably where Governments are making the biggest savings, which in turn allows them to spend MORE on the platform, while still making it economical...
SA
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
There is no competition amongst shipyards. Irving will select whatever design is approved by the government and then these two must agree on the actual construction cost. I agree, the major costs will be in the propulsion system, radars, and combat control system/ software. IP rights will be another cost issue as well.
And to think the Wave class are being built overseas to save money :crazyAbsolutely right, & in this case the whole clusterf**k is made even more unbelievable by the fact that the contract which has made it financially sensible to build the new OPVs was put in place because the problem of discontinuity putting up costs was recognised, & so the MoD committed itself to a steady building programme, enforced by a contract which meant it spent the money even if it didn't order the ships, just to make sure it'd order them. And then it didn't.
Just think how much money could have been saved building an extra couple of Darings plus a local Wave build. I could be wrong but I suspect that even if it didn't work out cheaper it wouldn't have cost any more.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess that would depend on what the final cost is to fix the Darling class's IEP system.
Too late for the Darings, I think. Production would have had to be restarted - & anyway, most of the cost is in the systems, not what's done by the shipyards, so it would have meant a lot of extra money spent on them.
The Wave class, though . . . if they could have been built in the yards, that could have been a big saving. Unfortunately, I think that wasn't considered because it was expected to get in the way of building T26. Doh!
That's how I understood it - there were no yards with the capacity at the time - then the carriers were floated out and tumbleweed rolled by as the Type 26 buy went to the right. The Wave class would have been more expensive to do at home but no more so than building a few OPV's that weren't needed and for which the RN do not have the personnel to run.
:sigh:
:sigh:
Vulcan
Member
Work on eight Type 26 frigates to begin in Summer 2017 - BBC News
Steel to be cut 'summer 2017' with 2 more OPVs to be ordered 'shortly' to fill the gap until then. About time and good to see. Little reminder also that Queen Elizabeth is meant to begin sea trials around New Years to look forward too . . . .
Tide class, not Wave class, as well
Steel to be cut 'summer 2017' with 2 more OPVs to be ordered 'shortly' to fill the gap until then. About time and good to see. Little reminder also that Queen Elizabeth is meant to begin sea trials around New Years to look forward too . . . .
Tide class, not Wave class, as well
Indeed. Got a mate on board QE, hoping to hear good things. They have been told to expect fire alarms and so forth however. Normal part of workup.Work on eight Type 26 frigates to begin in Summer 2017 - BBC News
Steel to be cut 'summer 2017' with 2 more OPVs to be ordered 'shortly' to fill the gap until then. About time and good to see. Little reminder also that Queen Elizabeth is meant to begin sea trials around New Years to look forward too . . . .
Tide class, not Wave class, as well
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Good news for the RN. Should help a bit for BAE''s chances for the RCN's CSC program design tender
t68
Well-Known Member
Also won't hurt the RAN too!
From another forum I visit,
The Defence Secretary has announced the steel cut for new Type 26 frigates will be in summer 2017, subject to final contract negotiations
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-confirms-summer-start-for-type-26-frigates
Ooops! Brain fart. Mixing up me old & new tankers.Work on eight Type 26 frigates to begin in Summer 2017 - BBC News
Steel to be cut 'summer 2017' with 2 more OPVs to be ordered 'shortly' to fill the gap until then. About time and good to see. Little reminder also that Queen Elizabeth is meant to begin sea trials around New Years to look forward too . . . .
Tide class, not Wave class, as well